Talk:James Buchanan/Archive 2

Request for Comment
This is a dispute about the content of this article, and sources thereof.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
 * In order to construct a well-rounded article on James Buchanan it is prudent to include information on his relationship with William R. King, which would include the relevant rumours and/or attacks that it prompted. Modern takes on those circumstances, such as that of James Loewen, should also be mentioned.  In accordance with WP:NPOV there should be no attempt to substantiate either view. My most recent proposal is directly above. --G2bambino 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV quite clearly states that "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." We have reliable sources for it being a significant published point of view today that Buchanan was our first gay president.  We have reliable sources for the fact that even at the time this interpretation was being put on Buchanan's relationship with King -- including a source specifically identified as reliable by, the editor most vigorously opposed to any mention of Buchanan's sexuality.  I can find no other way to interpret 's announcements of his position other than that, because he feels that the evidence for the significant published point of view of Buchanan being gay is weak, he will oppose any attempt to present that significant published point of view (which he terms "demonstrably false") or insist that it be presented only as "the mocking taunts of Buchanan's rivals". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with including material that can be sourced to academic works, and not works of pop history. I note with interest that you have failed to in any way address the concerns I have raised per WP:REDFLAG.  As such, I will quote directly from a particularly relevant portion:


 * [c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
 * Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
 * If this portion of WP:REDFLAG does not convince you that pop history and Salon.com articles do not qualify for sourcing such "exceptional claims" regarding Buchanan, I don't know what will. I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon.  She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action.  Further speculation on the part of contemporary pop history authors (i.e. Loewen stating flatly, "Buchanan was the first gay president") is completely inappopriate for an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please refrain from misrepresenting (read:lying) about my position on this issue. You state that I am "opposed to any mention of Buchanan's sexuality." This is demonstrably false, and I'll thank you to stop making demonstrably false assertions about my position on this matter.K. Scott Bailey 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen an edit from you that retained even the parts about Buchanan's sexuality that you yourself do not dispute, attributed to a source that you yourself suggested as a reliable source. On the contrary, I have seen you remove whole sections from the article, including material that pertained in no way to the disputed issue and the sourcing of which had never been questioned, with your edit summaries making it clear that it was the material about Buchanan's sexuality you were attempting to eliminate in this indiscriminate matter.  "demonstrably false assertions about [your] position on this matter"?  Your actions have demonstrated them true. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will say again, stop misrepresenting my position. Present a section that includes nothing from Salon.com or Loewen's Lies and then we'll have made some progress. Until then, I ask that you quit ascribing to me positions I do not hold.K. Scott Bailey 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Observation - this is currently a "Class B" article. The inclusion of non-academic sources at this point will not help the article move into "Class A" status.  Rklawton 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has yet proposed that a non-academic source be used. --G2bambino 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * James Lowen's book is a non-academic (non-peer reviewed) source. There is a significant difference between something published by an academician for general consumption and something published by an academician through a peer-review process for other academicians.  Even within the area of peer-reviewed work, there exists various "tiers" of significance (i.e., some peer-reviewed journals are significantly more respected than others).  Lowen's book was written for reading by non-academicians and wasn't peer reviewed at all.  Rklawton 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then what I should have said is nobody has yet proposed that a non-academic source be used to make claims about Buchanan. In fact, Lowen's book, at least in my proposal, is only being used to illustrate the assertion made by Baker - which everyone agrees is a reliable source - that "Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president." I'm certainly not trying to say that Lowen's work affirms that Buchanan was gay - far from it!  All Lowen's work does is prove that some people currently think he was, as Baker makes reference to. --G2bambino 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Baker is another pop-history, non-peer reviewed source. Time-Life Books pretty much defines pop-history.  Rklawton 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that? KScott seems to think otherwise, and he's the one with the issue about proper sources. --G2bambino 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want proven. Rklawton 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That Baker's work is "pop-history," and, further, how such is discounted under WP:RS. --G2bambino 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to Time–Life. It's all popular reading.  They certainly aren't part of the academic press.  And my whole point here and above is that if editors want to see this article move up to the next higher level, they're going to have to start relying on academic sources.  Sure, it takes some of the fun out of it, but this article is about an American president who lived over 150 years ago.  Historians have had a chance to kick this around a bit and draw some conclusions.  Sure, there are some folks today who want to draw new conclusions based on a modern agenda, but that reflects more on them than it does on the subject and this article isn't about them.  What we need are historians who have examined and evaluated these new ideas and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals.  Those are the sources we should seek and cite.  Rklawton 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [I]f editors want to see this article move up to the next higher level, they're going to have to start relying on academic sources.
 * You'll have to forgive my ignorance here, but where is it stated at Wikipedia a) what defines an academic source, b) that an article's improved standard is inversely related to the number of "non-academic" sources used, and c) (again) what part of WP:RS deems Baker's and Lowen's work unacceptable as sources? I doubt you'd consider either newpaper and magazine articles, or websites, as academic; yet, they've been used as sources for articles that have reached an FA standard, let alone Class A (I direct you to Anne Frank, Mahatma Gandhi, and Rosa Parks as examples).  Why should this article be treated any differently? --G2bambino 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think should reference FA articles featuring people living in the 18th - 19th centuries rather than in more modern times. The short of it is:  the more unorthodox the claim, the more reliable the source must be.  You'll find this link useful:  WikiProject Biography/Assessment  Rklawton.  You may also wish to invite some of the project members to this RfC to gain their input.  Rklawton 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should say that in reviewing Baker further, Time-Life does do pop history. That's my mistake. Based upon how she approaches the subject, without drawing any unsupportable conclusions about the facts at hand, it felt like she was more detached and agenda-free than Loewen. While Loewen states flatly, "James Buchanan was our first gay president" Baker does not go that far. Even so, I agree about pop history, whether Baker's more sedate version, or Loewen's more over-the-top style. It does not improve the article in any way, and does not move it any closer to moving up a grade. As such, it doesn't belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how we need an academic source to support the claim that Buchanan has been called gay. He has pretty clearly been called gay, and this is easily demonstrable, and has been  demonstrated. To demonstrate that he actually was gay, we'd need a pretty high standard of sources. But much less to say that he has widely been called gay. john k 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As some here don't seem particularly inclined to actually access the relevant portions of WP:REDFLAG that I've posted now THREE TIMES, I'll repost it again.


 * I have no problem with including material that can be sourced to academic works, and not works of pop history. I note with interest that you have failed to in any way address the concerns I have raised per WP:REDFLAG.  As such, I will quote directly from a particularly relevant portion:


 * [c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
 * Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
 * If this portion of WP:REDFLAG does not convince you that pop history and Salon.com articles do not qualify for sourcing such "exceptional claims" regarding Buchanan, I don't know what will. I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon.  She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action.  Further speculation on the part of contemporary pop history authors (i.e. Loewen stating flatly, "Buchanan was the first gay president") is completely inappopriate for an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is this: is claiming that Buchanan was our first gay president an "exceptional claim" as per WP:REDFLAG? If it is, pop history sources will not do. If it is not, then pop history sources would be fine. It would seem to be self-evident that it IS an "exceptional claim" as the Buchanan house doesn't even acknowledge the rumors. That in itself does not prove the claim false, but it DOES move the claim into the "exceptional" status in my view, which brings it into conflict with WP:REDFLAG with regards to citations of pop history sources such as Loewen's book.K. Scott Bailey 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're still missing the vast difference between the sentence "Buchanan was America's first gay president" and the sentence "Buchanan has been called America's first gay president." Your favorite WP:REDFLAG pertains to the first, not the second - it certainly is no exceptional claim to say he has been called gay, and nobody in the academic community has ever refuted that he's been called gay.  What there is is a contemporary, albeit limited, debate over whether or not he engaged in homosexual relations, and that is what this article should shed the pertinent amount of light on; it is not our intent here to prove or disprove whether Lowen, or his detractors are right or wrong, merely that there are people out there with differeing points of view about the man who is the subject of this article.  Of course, you'll argue that the views of those people should not be included in this article because their work isn't up to standard; yet, we must operate by Wikipedia's standards and not our personal ones, and time and time again, two of you now have failed completely to explain exactly why Lowen, Salon, and now Baker fail to meet WP:RS. --G2bambino 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was "called" the first gay president in a non-academic setting is actually a 21st century issue and not a matter for this 19th century person's biography. Likewise, I wouldn't support a trivia section listing all the times Buchanan has appeared in "Scooby Doo", either.  Rklawton 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you guys really denying that there has been a great deal of discussion over Buchanan possibly being homosexual?  This is ridiculous.  From earlier discussion, it is pretty clearly that this is an issue which has been addressed by Buchanan's modern biographers.   That they do not clearly come down on the side that Buchanan was gay does not mean that the issue is itself a fringe one.  It is one that is clearly  important enough  that Buchanan's biographers have addressed it.  Even if they came down on the side of "the evidence is inconclusive," the issue is clearly significant enough to be brought up in this article. john k 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The contemporary word "gay" is not the operative word. Gay is a late twetnieth century Western construct, it infers much more than sexual mechanics or choice or orientation of gender for a sexual partner. As several contemporary biographers have discussed the subject it naturally deserves mention in the article. It has never been presented as conclusive, and obviously can't be, but that doesn't prevent it being included. Michael Beschloss and Brian Lamb are mainstream media who can't posibly be accused of a gay agenda. Ninteenth century newspaper accounts, and the personal diaries of Buchanan's contemoraries make references that suggest some people then believed Buchanan to be homosexual. Attempts to discuss this possibility on this page and on the talk pages of editors on this subject, are met with a rush to label it as dishonoring the man, and historical revisionism. I recommend it remain in the article, using the term homosexual, not gay, unless specifically citing a contemporary reputable source.


 * The opinion of the organization operating Buchanan's home should have no bearing on the subject. These organizations are often by design defensive of a static portrayal of their subject. Consider the formerly reactionary response on the subject of slavery of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association or the treatment of Jefferson's African-American descendants by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (now restyled Thomas Jefferson Foundation). For generations both organizations adamantly refused to acknowledge this part of both men's history to the point of keeping slave quarters closed, then refering to them as the "servants" work areas. Today the context and presentation is different, reflecting the larger society's understanding of slavery, racial segregation, etc. While it's not Wikipedia's business to create new research, it should reflect the range of citable third-party authored research on the subject. James Buchanan absolutely was not gay. But he very well may have been homosexual, and seems to have been homoaffectual as well.CApitol3 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire last sentence is nothing but conjecture on your part. It's simply your interpretation of the facts at hand, and it has no place in a WP article.K. Scott Bailey 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely as you have done regarding which sources are acceptable an which are not. --G2bambino 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was "called" the first gay president in a non-academic setting is actually a 21st century issue and not a matter for this 19th century person's biography.
 * The very fact that he continues to be of some interest in the 21st century is in itself reason to include 21st century views, conflicting as they are, of the man. Or, should all accounts of his presence in history end abruptly when he died?  I suppose then you feel the "legacy" part of the "Post-presidency, death and legacy" section should be removed as well.
 * I agree whole-heartedly that Wikipedia should completely avoid using the term "gay" to describe Buchanan - it is indeed a modern, self-identity label with cultural/political overtones - but it should be mentioned that he has been dubbed as such by others, and why. The descriptions of his relationship with Ann Coleman should also, of course, be included.  This presents all the facts we have available, and leaves the reader to formulate their own opinions.  Anything else is simply censorship. --G2bambino 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My final opinion on the matter is this: as I've stated before, anything that can be sourced to an academic, well-respected source should be included.  Anything else should be excluded.  If references can be found to support that actual academic sources mention the rumors about him, and discuss them in some way, that should be included.  If these rumors can only be sourced to pop history--or, yes, Salon.com articles--they should be excluded.  Improvement of this article is my only goal. If the article can be improved with reliably sourced references regarding Buchanan's sexuality, by all means, include them.  If those sources can not be found, then such references must remain out, per WP:REDFLAG.  Source it reliably or scrap it completely, is how I read WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why exactly isn't the Baker biography a reliable source,again? She's a professor of history, and so far as I can tell,  the author of one of only two recent biographies of the man.  It's completely ridiculous to exclude her, and appears to be based only on a  desire to exclude anything that mentions the rumors  about Buchanan's sexuality.  BTW, Times Books is not Time-Life at all.  It is a division of Henry Holt, a well respected mainstream publisher, in partnership with the New York Times.  The series of presidential biographies that they publish had the recently deceased Arthur Schlesinger, a well known historian and public intellectual, as its general editor.  The book is perfectly acceptable as a source, and this is all ridiculous. john k 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, did you say Baker is a professor? That type often has a liberal leftist, gay-leaning bent. And, John, aren't Henry Holt Publishers and The New York Times sort of ground-zero of the liberal biased media? Did you say Arthur Schesinger!? Wasn't he a Democrat? It's anyone's guess why they hate America so much. Most of those New York City types of publishers employ open homosexuals so what can you expect? I've just searched the Fox News web site data base and there's absolutely ZERO mention of James Buchanan being one of them homosexuals. And ditto for the Washington Times and National Review. I guess we can put this whole sad James Buchanan homosexualty issue to bed! Just not with a guy. Seriously, if you have citations, put it up. I'm not interested in additional protests of how I miss the point and keeping this out is not the teensiest-weensiest bit homophobic. Spare me.CApitol3 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that Fox News, Washington Times, and National Review are somehow the sum and whole of all reliable journalism in the United States is an extremely irrational and tenditious argument. I am ALL for presenting two sides of a viewpoint. But to do so, you actually need to....yes, present BOTH sides. Assuming that the status quo must know best and nodding like little sheep going to slaughter is hardly a sign of "loving America". Despite your contention that this should be a platform for your personal views, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The assertions about Buchanan's sexuality should well be mentioned - and the strength or weakness of those assertions should also be listed. If we do not know something with a certainty, obviously that should be outlined too. Our goal is to list as much information about the subject as possible, without prejudice. GearedBull/Capitol, I understand that you PERCEIVE all this to be a "liberal" slant, but taking out information and pimping your point of view does NOT equal a "fair and balanced" article. NickBurns 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind you of WP:NPA. I'm a liberal Democrat, for the record--not that it's any of your business, or has anything to do with this discussion. Please stay focused on the issue at hand and refrain from making your own personal value judgements about the motivations of other editors.  It not only better furthers discussion, but it also portrays your own intellect in a more favorable light.K. Scott Bailey 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to present the image posted by the above user as exhibit A in who is pushing an agenda here. "Good Americans don't ask questions"?!?  So, for you is this just all about "questioning the man" or are you truly interested in whether or not the rumors about Buchanan's sexuality belong in this article?K. Scott Bailey 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I got your attention. I've been quiet and observed this "discussion" from a distance for 10 days. I sat back and watched your edits, and was not entirely happy but willing to see where you'd take this.


 * I can't be any clearer. The possibility, likely probability, of Buchanan's homosexuality deserves presence in the article. The posted picture is no more imflammatory than much of the prose here. The environment seemed ardently anti-new findings, and called to mind this image. Kay, I understand you feel strongly one way about this, and have invested a huge amount of time in it. I repsect that. I just disagree on what you find admissable, and even when administrators disagree with you, you dismiss them. History isn't being written here; either by consensus or by one perspective winning an editing war. I don't see anyone presenting their own new research here. If you do a search on ask, google or yahoo on James Buchanan it pretty much confirms the genie is out of the bottle re questions about his sexual orientation. I can likely never know if Abraham Lincoln suffered clinical depression. But if diaries and newspapers and accounts of the time suggest he might have, most scholars would think that is a legitimate part of who the man was. Several Lincoln scholars have writen on the subject of Lincoln's depression, one even seeing it as a part of his genius. Contemporary scholars parsing nineteenth century accounts suggesting Buchanan was homosexual are parallel. The tragedy isn't that people 150 years later are suggesting this, but that if the man were homosexual, that he could not have had an open validated relatisonship in his day. CApitol3 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You claim, "scholars would think that is a legitimate part of who the man was" regarding Lincoln's depression, and then say that contemporary scholars speculating that Buchanan was homosexual is "parallel" to that. I'll tell you what, you find a legitimate, scholarly treatment of these rumors, and we'll include that research.  Loewen's book is not scholarly, and does not belong as a reference, nor does a Salon.com article.  Find me some scholarly research, then we'll talk.  As I've said before, I'll say again.  I have no problem with the content, if it's supported by sources not in conflict with WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also remind you that the editorial opinion of an admin carries no more weight in a discussion than that of us lowly common editors. You say, "even when administrators disagree with you, you dismiss them."  Just because an admin holds an opinion doesn't make it carry any more weight.K. Scott Bailey 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KSB has, I believe, agreed to include the Baker material. "I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon. She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action." Since Baker appears to be the most recent biographer, and is a full professor and Ph.D., and since there's general agreement on Baker, why don't we just use that material? -Will Beback · † · 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'll tell you what, you find a legitimate, scholarly treatment of these rumors, and we'll include that research." Are you consenting to Baker, or not?CApitol3 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor: This reminds me of the dispute about Lincoln's sexuality. Lincoln "supporters" wouldn't allow any mention of his sexuality to be discussed in the main article, even as a "See Also". Ultimately an entirely separate article was written, which the supporters then tried (unsuccessfully) to have deleted. If you look closely at the main Lincoln article a footnote provides a link to the article about his possible homosexuality. Lots of Wikidrama for those with nothing better to do. Is this what you all want to happen here? A drawn out conflict which doesn't improve Wikipedia at all? Sources say he was possible homosexual. Put that in the article as a claim. And if obstructionists try to censor the published claims, then create a separate article about Buchanan's sexuality, with a little link from this article. If it is published, it is verifiable, and that's in line with Wiki's mission statement. Jeffpw 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment: We are an encyclopedia, we do not report "truth" we report what others have said and done. Someone above said "Should random speculation from a person's enemies be included in someone's article?" - to which the answer is demonstrably "yes", if it is notable, NPOV, and sourced. See Julius Caesar. Should rumours of a person's alleged homosexuality be commented on, regardless of its truthfulness? Yes, see Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and separate articles Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Hitler's sexuality, and even Jesus Christ's sexuality. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If every modern biographer has seen fit to address allegations of Buchanan's homosexuality, than it should be mentioned, all of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should WP:REDFLAG simply be ignored then? Apparently "exceptional claims"--which asserting that "Buchanan was our first gay president" as Loewen does would qualify as--require exceptional sources.  Loewen's Lies Across America and a Salon.com article do not qualify.  Additionally, I think that the focus of this debate SHOULD perhaps shift to the stand-alone article, where the issue could be dealt with in more depth.  I would even be willing to assist in reworking that article (which is currently a mess) if that were the decision we reached.K. Scott Bailey 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note with interest that the two "examples" you pointed out that supposedly demonstrate how even rumors of a person's alleged homosexuality--regardless of truthfuflness--should be included (Cruise and Travolta) are B-class and Start articles respectively. Perhaps the inclusion of rumors regardless of truthfulness (in clear violation of WP:REDFLAG) is why they are rated thus.K. Scott Bailey 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Snarkiness does not add to the discussion, KSB. The simple fact of the mater is that the majority of articles (aprox 95%) are B class or lower. The inclusion of rumors, if sourced, would not be a reason to lower its rating. I notice from your talk page that you have fought with many people about this issue. If half a dozen people, including administrators, are telling you that your approach to the issue may not be the most appropriate, perhaps you would benefit from listening. You don't seem to understand the policies very well, which is understandable, given how new you are. Allow me to suggest the confrontational approach you have been taking doesn't generally lead to good articles. Further, WP:REDFLAG specifically mentions biographies of living people and historical events, not bios of historical figures. The fact remains that there are sources for the assertions other editors wish to add. WP:RS and WP:V are more relevent policies for this article. Jeffpw 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent two things in your post: my intent in the above post, and the contents of WP:REDFLAG. First, my post was not intended to be "snarky", it was intended to point out that perhaps one reason that the two articles cited as some sort of "evidence" that rumors of homosexuality are appropriate WP fare are rated B-class and Start was because they contain such rumors.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Secondly, there is no portion of WP:REDFLAG tha precludes it being applied to biographies of historical figures.  One last thing: please keep your insults to yourself.  It's not yours to judge whether I "know the policies very well" or not.  Nor is it yours to determine whether I'm "listening" to the other editors who have disagreed with me on the issues regarding this article.  A "half-dozen" editors can be just as wrong as one editor.  Numbers do not indicate rightness. And as far as "facts remaining" goes, the "sources" provided are NOT reliable per WP:REDFLAG as I've pointed out numerous times.K. Scott Bailey 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret WP:REDFLAG. --G2bambino 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Among other things, it is not an "exceptional claim" to state that there have been longstanding rumors about Buchanan's  sexuality.  This is blatantly obvious. john k 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reporting rumors is always an "exceptional claim", when one of the sources you wish to cite (Loewen) reports said rumors as fact. Find exceptional sources that report these rumors AS rumors, then we'll include them. There's no compromise here.  BTW, I especially like how G2bambino writes that I misinterpret REDFLAG, but provides no support for such a claim.  I find this not at all surprising.K. Scott Bailey 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One more time: stating that there were rumours is not an "exceptional claim." An "exceptional claim" would be to try and state a fact using rumours as evidence.  That is your misinterpretation. --G2bambino 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The rumors THEMSELVES are an "exceptional claim", which require exceptional sources. Rumors unsupported by exceptional sources should not be included.K. Scott Bailey 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The rumours were created outside the scope of Wikipedia, therefore WP:REDFLAG doesn't apply specifically to them. It only applies to material inserted into Wikipedia. As has been said to you time and bloody time again: it is not an exceptional claim to state that there were rumours.  It is an exceptional claim to make an assertion here and use rumours as supporting evidence.  We wish to do the former, not the latter.  Please understand this, and please discontinue this disruption. --G2bambino 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG is not the only policy she seems to misinterpret. She seems a tad vague on WP:CIV, as well. Jeffpw 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on referring to me as "she"? Not certain how the name "K. Scott Bailey" could be interpreted as a female name.  And vigorous debate is not in violation of any WP guidelines regarding civility, so I will thank you to stop claiming that it is.K. Scott Bailey 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WRT rumors, I think Scott pretty blatantly has this all wrong. The question of whether a rumor is significant enough to report in a wikipedia article bears no relation to the question of whether that rumor is true. For a good example of our coverage of rumors, see our article on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Unlike the rumors about Buchanan's sexuality, which may very well be true, the rumor which states that Clarence was Jack the Ripper is pretty conclusively false. Nonetheless, this rumor has been widely reported, has formed the basis of various books, and is, as such, duly reported as a rumor in the prince's article. Similarly, the issue of Buchanan's sexuality has been an open question for a long time, and a lot has been written on it. Most writers do not actually say that Buchanan and King's relationship was a sexual one, but a whole ton has been written on it, and Buchanan's recent biographers have dealt with the subject  (certainly, Baker does). To report on these very significant rumors is not an "exceptional claim." You are simply wrong about what WP:REDFLAG. Further, it would probably behoove you to stop saying WP:REDFLAG all the time, as we all are quite well aware that you think this violates WP:REDFLAG, and we all have, by now, reviewed WP:REDFLAG and disagree with your claim that WP:REDFLAG applies here, since we don't think that  any WP:REDFLAGs are raised by this article, and that thus you are repeatedly raising the issue of [{WP:REDFLAG]] for no reason. john k 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that a 1-line comment could be added that "Unsubstantiated rumors arose during the late 20th century regarding Buchanan's possible homosexuality." NjtoTX 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Block
I believe that the block should be removed from James Buchanan's page and that no new articles about his sexuality should be added. There is something I'd like to add to his presidency section that I can not do to the block. I ask that whoever added it please remove it. -The Mystery Man
 * The block is there because certain users insisted on reinserting poorly sourced rumors and innuendo about Pres. Buchanan with no discussion. It will most likely stay until this issue is resolved.K. Scott Bailey 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the only one causing the block to remain, KScott. --G2bambino 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I am not the only one who thinks that poorly sourced rumors don't belong in this article.  And even if I were, facts are facts: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  And the fact that the moment the block is lifted you or one of your cohorts will summarily insert whatever you deem appropriate into the article--regardless of WP:REDFLAG's demand for exceptional sourcing for exceptional claims--is most likely a MAJOR reason the block remains.K. Scott Bailey 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (2)
I propose that we revert back to what User:Gamaliel suggested over two years ago. The text would be as follows:

Buchanan was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D.C. Rumors and speculation that the two had a homosexual relationship began at the time and have periodically been revived by historians, but decisive evidence one way or the other seems lacking.

This short segment would be sourced to Baker, and/or to the other biography I was able to find (can't remember the name off-hand), leaving off reference to Loewen and Salon.com. It addresses the problem of not ignoring the speculation, while also relegating it properly to what it actually is: speculation. Any problems with the above text?K. Scott Bailey 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be fine. More details from Baker (about, for instance, the nicknames given to King, the claim that he was "Buchanan's wife," the nature of their surviving correspondence, and so forth) would also be appropriate, however. john k 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor - I agree with John K. I think that above is fine, but fleshed out a little more.  Our goal on this site is to inform, not just to "hint" at an academic debate.  I don't think "teasing" the reader with this information does Wikipedia any good, which is supposed to be the "sum of human knowledge" - and this is knowledge; imperfect knowledge due to the limitations of calling a spade a spade, etc. in Buchanan's day.  But let's just come out with it and say what is said about the two men, and arguments for and against those interpretations.  Otherwise, what's the point of Wikipedia?  --David Shankbone 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My earlier proposal was similar to KScott's, with the detail that John K and David desire. Though certainly not perfect, is it a step in the right direction? --G2bambino 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal is very well written, and illustrates the nuance in their relationship and modern limitations on speculation perfectly. I also don't think Loewen or Salon are "out of bounds" and that isn't the case on virtually any other article.  I'm not sure why the bar has to be raised so high on this one when reporting on a gray area.    --David Shankbone 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean no offense when I say this, but why is it necessary to "flesh out" what is little more than speculation? The above proposal notes the speculation, and acknowledges it in a completely NPOV.  Adding further details only gives undue weight to the speculation.  As I've said before, I'd be willing to work with anyone who wanted to on the stand-alone article, where the issue could be "fleshed out" further.  I think the above, completely neutral proposal is very adequate to the perceived necessity of at least addressing the issue in the main article.K. Scott Bailey 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we have enough info for a separate article? --G2bambino 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One exists already, and in such a separate article, the rumors could be sourced to some "less exceptional" sources than the main article would require.K. Scott Bailey 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a claim is made more or less exceptional by whether it's in its own  article or  not. john k 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think such an exceptional claim does less damage when it's confined to its own separate article, in an article DESIGNED to address such poorly-sourced speculation. In a main presidential article, such speculation should be summarily addressed, according to the FACTS at hand.  A separate article would entail its own problems and difficulties, but it would allow the progress of the main Buchanan article to proceed sans such debates.K. Scott Bailey 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KSB, since you're so big on reading policy here (though your grasp of it seems sketchy at best), I suggest you read WP:OWN. You seem to think you have some sort of greater claim to this article which entitles you to direct how the editing here shall progress. The fact is that you don't. If a reference is good enough for one article relating to a topic, it is also good enough for another article on a similar topic. Further, the consensus seems to be that Buchanan's possible homosexuality is A) not an extraordinary claim, and B) the references offered are strong enough. Your edit warring on this topic has gotten you blocked once already. Perhaps you should follow step 2 of conflict resolution, and deisngage for a while to regain some perspective which you seem yo have lost. Jeffpw 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that it is not an extraordinary claim. The evidence is that it 1. was talked about during his lifetime; 2. has remained speculation for which there is some evidence; and 3. is discussed and debated in academic circles, as well as in the popular media.  All these things point to inclusion of, at the very least, a decent paragraph and not a mere sentence.  The consensus on this page also seems quite clear.  I've followed this and it would seem it's time to move on.  --David Shankbone 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Show the "some evidence" of which you speak. There is none. The debate is about to what extent this article should deal with the RUMORS. There IS no "evidence" to support the allegations other than the rumors themselves.  Thus the difficulty with WP:REDFLAG.  As for Jeffpw, please refrain from speculating on my motives, and accusing me of violating WP:OWN with no supporting evidence.  My sole goal has been--since the beginning--to improve the article.  I'll thank you to not speculate otherwise, and to focus on improving the article alone.  It's to the benefit of the article to do so.K. Scott Bailey 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence is of the rumors during his lifetime - there was evidence of rumors. I think we should use what G2bambino suggested.  KSB, your issues are well-documented here, but really the only difference between G2bambino's suggestion and yours is that G2bambino goes into more detail, while still keeping the speculative nature of it in sight.  I don't know why you would have such an issue; yours and his aren't particularly different except as to the amount of detail, which I think most people on here would agree is better than less.  I'm not sure why, if you propose mentioning the rumor, you don't want to expound on the reasons for the rumors and what the rumors said.  That's perplexing, and not typical of a Wikipedia article.  --David Shankbone 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You said there was "speculation for which there was some evidence" which implies that the speculation was founded in "some evidence." Rumors can not serve as evidence of rumors.  Should the fact that there were rumors about he and King's friendship be included?  Sure.  Should it be given undue weight by including authors like Loewen who state the rumors as established fact, and expanding it into a section of its own?  I don't think so.  A short paragraph should suffice.  Three to four lines--perhaps a couple of sentences--should be more than enough.K. Scott Bailey 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Scott, you're getting really wrapped up in this. You might want to take a break (which I've had to do on some articles).  I am not saying there is "evidence of his homosexuality" I am saying that there is "evidence of rumors during his lifetime".  No more, no less.  But once you find yourself repeating the same arguments over and over again, it's time to take a break.  Repetition isn't going to sway anyone, and right now you are fighting a lone battle against what looks like pretty clear consensus.  I think we should go with Bambino's paragraph, which is well-written and fleshes out the issue well. --David Shankbone 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source
There is an interesting review of Salon.com as a source on another article here, where an analysis of its editorial policies, awards, staff, etc. was undertaken. --David Shankbone 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the awards Salon.com has won: http://www.salon.com/press/awards/index.html  --David Shankbone 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Awards don't diminish the fact that Salon is a POV-pushing magazine, and thus inappropriate as an "exceptional source." Do you deny that Salon has a distinct, non-neutral POV?K. Scott Bailey 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the reporting this rumor that has survived through the ages requires the extraordinarily high bar that you feel it does. We are here to report issues to the fullest degree possible, and I find your vehemence perplexing on this matter. Nobody on this Talk page wants to say "Buchanan is gay", which would require the "exceptional source" standard you want; they simply want to include a perception/allegation/rumor (or whatever terminology) held by some during his day, and still an issue of serious academic and popular discussion (thus not requiring "exceptional sourcing").  I also don't think Salon has agenda to prove Buchanan gay, nor do I feel Salon.com has a gay agenda. --David Shankbone 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You never answered my question. Do you deny that Salon has a distinct, non-neutral POV?K. Scott Bailey 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * David's opinion of Salon is none of your business, KSB, and your opinion of it doesn't interest me, as that is inherently your POV. Our job as editors is not to evaluate the POV of a source, but simply to verify the assertions in the article with sources. The reader then looks at the sources, and can decide for him/herself if we have made our case, judging by their opinion of the sources. The fact that you don't seem to grasp this makes your edits here (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) a matter of concern for me. Jeffpw 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question
So, can I ask, is there anyone here who actually agrees at all with K. Scott Bailey? Because it seems to me from the discussion above that everyone, except K. Scott Bailey, thinks that the rumours should be included in the article and referenced by his recent biographies.I genuinely can't see anyone that agrees with K. Scott Bailey's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG or views on "exceptional claims", or even stranger claims that the grading of articles can be lowered because of gay rumours. If everyone is arguing against one person, it seems wisest to just ignore him and go with the consensus version. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rklawton appeared to be more unreasonable than K. Scott Bailey, in fact, to the extent of making ridiculous false statements that the Baker biography was unacceptable because it was published by Time-Life [sic]. Nobody else appears to agree, though. john k 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You would do well to note that people can canvas for consensus in an attempt to get POV-pushing into an article. It doesn't make that group right.  I have made it clear that I'm not dead set against inclusion.  All I would like to see is that it be reliably sourced per WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it's probably not good practice to encourage people to simply ignore WP policy simply because a several people think we should, and only two think we should not. WP policy takes precedence over consensus every time.K. Scott Bailey 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KSB, Dev was not suggesting we ignore any Wikipedia policies; she was suggesting we ignore you, and I completely agree. Jeffpw 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! I missed this little personal attack.  Good show!K. Scott Bailey 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bambino's proposal - please vote support or oppose, preferrably with no commentary

 * For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with William Rufus King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce, though King died four years before Buchanan became President. This situation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The term "Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men in the nineteenth century. ) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship.  While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship"; Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time.  Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led to modern speculation on Buchanan's sexuality - in particular, authors such as Paul Boller, in Not So!, and James Loewen, in Lies Across America - and his being dubbed "American's first homosexual president," no conclusive evidence exists to support whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in sexual relations.


 * Comment: I don't like the idea of support/oppose, etc. Discussion works better than voting for evolving a consensus and the support/oppose sections are unnecessarily divisive. IMO. IvoShandor 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We have pages of debate here, we have 9 editors (if you include Bambino, whose proposal we are voting on) who think it is a good piece, and we have on editor kicking up a fuss that he isn't getting his way.  I disagree that the time for a vote to weigh consensus has not come.  There's been plenty of discussion, and as you can see from the tally, it's pretty clear where the consensus is heading.  Since arguments were being repeated, with nothing new being said. And I also disagree that the histories, edits and abilities of the editors don't come into play here.  Wikipedia's editors have reputations (as the Essjay controversy demonstrated) and our reputations do put weight behind our words.  We have little else to go on.  Scott is a new editor, and people like Jeffpw have about 3 Featured Articles under their belts.  That counts for something when discussing policy, the merits of sources, and the substance of edits.  --David Shankbone 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can disagree all you want. Fact is, more often than not when people on the Wiki start throwing around statements that weigh to credentials it eventually devolves into a personal battle, which is what should be avoided for civility to be maintained. And in this case it was discussion, not voting that led you to liking my suggestions, with which I am only trying to help. Perhaps the user in question doesn't possess the experience or grasp of policy you or I do but the fact is that the discussion that it brought up has or is going to help the article, the voting just further isolated a user who probably already felt brow beaten in my opinion. IvoShandor
 * Sorry if that first sentence seemed kind of harsh, it did to me when I reread it. IvoShandor 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, and I'm sorry if I came across as too strong as well. But if this user feels isolated, I suggest he brought it upon himself - the insinuations we are all in cahoots with some undefined aim (after I nicely tried to tell him there is nothing personal) hasn't added to any sense of consensus.  None of us have discussed this matter at the outset, or before we voted.  Voting is a common tool to discover where consensus lies.  It's worth noting that this User would prefer to see nothing in the article about this topic, and he proposed to delete the stand-alone article, which doesn't do much for his good faith.  Nor does his conjecture as to our motivations, or the bickering he has undertaken with admins on his User Talk page.  His contributions here are turning more to disruptive editing than to consensus building.  There are reasons he stands alone, and they weren't imposed on him by anyone on this page.  However, your efforts to mediate this lone users issues are admirable; but please keep in mind, there is quite a bit of consensus already and Scott has been blocked for disruptive editing over this issue.  --David Shankbone 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just stop. I was not "blocked for disruptive editing."  I got a 24-hour for 3RR, which I felt was unjust--and yes, discussed at length with the blocking admin--in the initial phases of the debate.  I do not engage in "disruptive editing" and I'll thank you to stop engaging in personal attacks.  As for me supposedly bringing this upon myself, and your claim that I would "prefer to see nothing in the article about this topic" both are simply untrue.  I think that someone outside the situation would read the above and probably understand why I felt like I was under attack.  And for you to claim "it's nothing personal" in the same post where you make it VERY personal is a bit ironic.  I have admitted that I could be wrong about concluding that you guys were colluding against me.  But I also think that a neutral observer could well read the above debate as a tag-team match, where you guys took turns ignoring every concern I raised, and beating up on me with your claims of "consensus" simply because the other person who had been attempting to reason with you all (Rklawton--who has also come under personal attacks) wasn't available to "enter the fray", so-to-speak.  I attempted to offer a two sentence proposal that that fully acknowledged that there had been rumors around the Buchanan/King relationship, without giving undue weight to such rumors.  I was summarily shot down, and a competing proposal was drafted that included both of the sources with which I'd stated I had a problem based on WP:REDFLAG.  I was told to vote, PREFERABLY without commentary, which was impossible--and I suggest, actually counterproductive--to do.  I contend that the "without commentary" vote was simply an attempt to push me into submitting to a draft I felt had some very clear problems.  As for the initial delete notice on the "Sexuality" article, I've changed my mind on that--and stated so numerous times--and I actually feel that would be a better place to "flesh out" the speculation than in the main article, much like the Lincoln article does.  I think if one examines my ACTUAL position on this matter, it becomes apparent that I'm not engaging in POV-pushing, censorship, or anything other than a good faith attempt to keep the article free of dubious sources.  Nothing more, nothing less.K. Scott Bailey 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To: Mr. Shankbone, I am definitely trying to keep in mind the consensus, it was just my opinion that it is possible that an average reader could have concerns as well, someone unlikely to contribute to the project. That's all. In the end I think it will be the better for it. And I still haven't combed all the databases I have I access to. Darn it. IvoShandor 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to keep in mind average Joe Blow who knows nothing about Buchanan coming across this page, I would want their first interaction with Buchanan to be one supported by good quality, academic sources. I guess that's my overall gist here. And I intend to help the article to that end wherever possible. : ) IvoShandor 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --David Shankbone 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --CApitol3 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Jeffpw 03:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --john k 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) This is fine, although I'd be willing to accept a version that doesn't specifically mention Loewen, et al, if that would make Scott happy. john k 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) --Looks fine, seems to address undue weight concerns and still includes relevant information in context. WjBscribe 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) --I can't imagine a less objectionable statement, and it meets the criteria for reliable sources. Apparently, anything less than James Buchanan himself coming out of his grave to verify this information will not please some folks, though. NickBurns 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) -Support - seems to be NPOV though I think that the circustantial evidence says he was gay ForrestLane42 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Oppose

 * 1) --K. Scott Bailey 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Per concerns with Loewen and Salon.com as "references". I have also never read Listening to America, and would need to review it first.  No problems with Baker's treatment of the subject.
 * Comment--KSB, If I was concerned before that you were being unreasonable and arguing for the sake of arguing, I am now completely convinced. Loewen is not used as a source in that text. He is mentioned, but not used as a source. It would seem that you will not allow the factually accurate sentence that Loewen mentioned it to be included. leading me back to the conclusion that you think you own the article. Jeffpw 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Loewen does not merit mention. You can accuse me of "owning" the article all you want. I have no problem including the fact that there were rumors. I have a problem including Loewen's distinctly non-neutral POV stuff in a summary of the rumors, giving his work--and the speculation--undue weight.  I know it would be very convenient for you five if I just left, but I'm not the only one who thinks the inclusion of Loewen, et al is out of line.K. Scott Bailey 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to decide if facts may be mentioned or not, KSB, and it is a fact that Loewen wrote that. You may not censor the information available to readers of this site. The fact that you wish to do this tells me that you are pushing a POV here. I suggest you consider whether or not you have lost your objectivity here. Jeffpw 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. What POV is that?  I have no problem with including the rumors.  I have a problem with including non-neutral POV-pushing "sources" like Loewen.  What POV exactly am I pushing?  This should be interesting.K. Scott Bailey 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN as you have beaten me down with accusations of POV-pushing, though I'm not certain exactly what POV I would be pushing. I don't support that guy who referred to the sexuality issue as "disgusting" and I support inclusion of the references to the rumors that take a neutral POV, such as Baker and other dispassionate biographers.  I only have a problem with books like Loewen's and articles like Salon's that seem to have a clear non-neutral POV.  As you all seem hell-bent on including such sources--and forcing them through by "consensus"--I will remove James Buchanan from my watch list.  Do whatever the heck you want with the article.  Include Loewen, Salon, or whatever other non-neutral "sources" you wish to. I don't understand the push to include such sources, when you can get the same general information into the article without including such sources.  But the five of you insist, so I withdraw from attempting to stem the tide.K. Scott Bailey 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There just shouldn't be so much emotion in your editing. Nobody "beat you down" - we disagree; that's all.  I've found your discussions on this talk page to be odd for the emotion with which you've infused your arguments, and our arguments.  Scott, you win some, you lose some.  We all do.  We all have an interest in creating a good encyclopedia, and we happen to disagree with you on this.  There's nothing personal or "hell bent" about it.  --David Shankbone 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. "Nothing personal." If you say so.  You all got your way.  Just run with it.  Include Loewen if you want.  Though inclusion of such clearly non-neutral POV "sources" denigrates the article, you all don't want to believe that, so have at it.  After 24 hours, this page will be completely off my anti-vandalism watch list, so you can add whatever the heck you want. I'm done trying to stem the tide the five of you are riding.K. Scott Bailey 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5-1 doesn't seem kinda, uh, indicative you may be wrong? But whatever, you obviously aren't going to read this...(?) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus--or even unanimity--does not always equal being right. SCOTUS has reached consensus (or even unanimity) on issues in the past, and been wrong. And there are all sorts of other cases in life, as well as here at WP, when consensus doesn't necessarily equal rightness.  However, since I've decided to simply let you all have your way, and remove this from my watchlist in approximately 14 more hours, you've gotten your way.  Keep up the good work, and have a nice day.K. Scott Bailey 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, it would appear to be 5-3 now, under the obvious assumption that Rklawton would fall on the side of excluding poor sources like Loewen, Salon, et al. Hardly the overwhelming "consensus" you were touting before.K. Scott Bailey 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:I would appreciate it if we could put something like "Rumours have persisted regarding the nature of their relationship" or something like that in the first few sentences. I just want it emphasised that these are rumours. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Comment Since this article is about a former President of the United States (though a less noted one) you should be using academic sources not Salon. Also, that article is about Lincoln not Buchanan, is there a better reference? IvoShandor 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IvoShandor, you're certainly welcome to find another, more academic source to supplement the ones already found. That said, there is nothing wrong with the Salon reference. And while it is about Lincoln, the reference is to a section about Buchanan. Jeffpw 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just not sure most readers would see that source as reliable because the relevant section on Buchanan was about a paragraph from what I can tell. Has this topic been written very extensively in the by academics? Don't know a lot about Buchanan. I still disagree that Salon is fine, not going to argue about it, but doubt any serious encyclopedia would use it as a ref, I don't know, maybe. IvoShandor 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless Salon.com is peer reviewed. Which I doubt. Very much. I do have access to tons of databases, so if you do know of an article you need I can "hook it up." : ) IvoShandor 11:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See this discussion above. And a source does not need to be Peer reviewed for this sort of article. Jeffpw 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Added note: I think the controversial and rumor nature of the information requires more stringent application of WP:A and better sources than Salon.com, which is why I am willing to help out, see above. Surely you must see that this information is likely to be challenged at some point in the future, don't you think a peer reviewed source would be much better? : ) IvoShandor 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're in an uphill battle, Ivo. There's a core group of editors here that are determined to include Salon, Loewen, et al in the main article for some reason. I've given up trying to sway them. I wish you good luck in your attempts.K. Scott Bailey 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not here to battle. Want to help. Have you folks red WP:REDFLAG? IvoShandor 11:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, I have quoted REDFLAG to them numerous times regarding the inclusion of poorly sourced rumors in an article. Review the above discussion for some lively reading on REDFLAG.  They simply wrote it off as not applicable for some reason, though it clearly seems to apply.K. Scott Bailey 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? It is policy. IvoShandor 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, and YOU know that, but this group of editors has convinced themselves that this policy does not apply in this case for some reason.K. Scott Bailey 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if some additional input my help from other editors here. RfC? Anyone? I think it might be a good idea. In the meantime I will await your reply before going ahead. IvoShandor 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 4 sources for that section, Ivo. Three of them are print, including the most recent biography of him. Taken as a whole, I think these are references enough for this section...though as I said, if you'd like to supplement them, please feel free. And yes, I think everyone concerned has read WP:REDFLAG. Why don't you have a look at the rest of the talkpage? There's already been an Rfc. Jeffpw 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As he said, they did that above, and SOMEHOW only like-minded editors showed up to comment. Hmmm... And it doesn't seem to matter that two of the sources cited are Salon and Loewen.K. Scott Bailey 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the talk page, thanks for pointing it out though. I just really think that this article will be a constant source of dispute over undue weight and redflag without some other sources to back it up, I will do some searching, see what I come up with. If I don't I may want to open another RfC to see what happens, can't hurt anyway. IvoShandor 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both undue weight and REDFLAG are very valid concerns. I have mentioned both in the course of the above discussions. The group of editors just don't seem to feel that these two present any problems in this case for some reason.K. Scott Bailey 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ivo, nobody has flagged each other to come talk on this discussion page, and you can check all of our histories if you would like. Scott has a history of hysterical editing, and he seems to think there is some kind of cabal that has formed on this Talk page to put in this information.  These rumors are long standing.  Redflag doesn't apply because we are presenting persistent rumors that have followed Buchanan in both his day and in history.  It is a subject of academic and popular debate.  We use four sources for one paragraph about the rumors, and we make it explicit that they are rumors and hard evidence is lacking.  If we were saying "Buchanan was the first gay President" on this article, then Redflag would be more applicable.  But we are not.  We are reporting on long-standing rumors that haunted Buchanan in his day.  Scott's behavior on this Talk page, his need to reply to every single comment that is left, and his Talk page history (which shows lashing out at everyone, including admins who blocked him) make it clear that this editor simply isn't getting his way and is "acting out".  He is lodging charges that are baseless, against editors who have long-standing histories of substantive contributions, and several of us have drafted articles from scratch that have reached Good Article.  We are all familiar with policy, we all want to see a good entry crafted, and none of us want to push POV on to this article.  This simply is not the case in this instance, although Scott's hysteria and pouting is not only inappropriate, his behavior is odd.  I realize he is new, though.  I would welcome a Request for Comment, although I think that is overkill.  You will note that the difference between Scott's proposal and the one that five long-standing editors think is better is that that Scott's just says there were "rumors" whereas the other proposal states what the rumors were.  It provides details Scott leaves out.  --David Shankbone 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And Salon.com is peer-reviewed, in that it employs a large, permanent editorial staff and fact-checkers. It is oft-used as a source on Wikipedia, and reporting rumors (as opposed to fact) and the context of those rumors makes it a perfectly acceptable source, along with the three others.  And there are not five editors who are supportive of this, there are about eight.  Scott hasn't been particularly successful in his canvassing - there are reasons.  None of us have canvassed.    --David Shankbone 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Salon has editors, and am aware of the persistence of this rumor. It would just be better to pull some more academic sources because the one author pretty much believes that Buchanan was gay, which there isn't a ton of historical evidence for, if my understanding is correct. I think to some readers (of which I am probably not one) it would appear that, since the author in question (Loewen) believes Buchanan was gay it could be construed as POV to use him as one of the primary sources backing up the claim (by some readers). See what I mean? The more NPOV the better right. Your right, Salon is probably okay, but, of course, should be replaced or bolstered if a better source were to come along.


 * As an added note, I don't know anything about any of the editors involved, I really just stumbled across this page. IvoShandor 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * DSB-Show my "history of hysterical editing" or withdraw the personal attack. Removing poorly sourced information is not "hysterical editing." Most of my other work has been in vandal fighting and in writing the short article for the Scott O'Dell Award for Historical Fiction. I would remind you of WP:NPA. As for histories, mine speaks for itself. I've been a hard worker in my short time on WP, working only for the betterment of the project. Longevity in the case of the "five editors" you speak of does not mean your position is right. If one takes a long view of this discussion page, it becomes clear that--whether intentional or not--you five (or six) FUNCTIONED as a gang of sorts, taking turns dismissing my concerns per WP:REDFLAG and undue weight, and attempting to misrepresent what I was actually calling for. I am not pushing any POV, nor am I engaging in "hysterical editing." I simply want a sober, clear-eyed look at the FACTS, supplemented with what we know of the speculations of his contemporaries, sans Salon, Loewen, et al. This is not asking much.
 * Additionally, you show a clear misunderstanding of what "peer review" entails. Having a "large editorial staff" is not anything LIKE peer review. One last thing: I have not "canvassed" at all. I simply left a note on the talk pages of two editors who had already displayed an interest in the James Buchanan page in the past. That is not the same as attempting to involve editors from outside the discussion. The fact that I have not been around WP as long as you have, and therefore do not have a wide group of associates ALSO does not make your position correct.K. Scott Bailey 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disregarding any discussion that doesn't pertain directly to the matter at hand, i.e. don't care how long anyone has been around, what they do here, there or anywhere. I dont care if Buchanan was gay or not. These rumors have been persistent throughout history. It would be better to have primary sources when we talk about the contemporary press, yes, but a summation should suffice and while peer review is much more stringent than having a large editorial staff, a large editorial staff generally contributes to the reliability of a source, which is why a publication like the NYT or Chicago Tribune would be reliable, Salon does have a reputation as to not sucking. I do like peer reviewed sources as opposed to mass media, but they will do for now, IMO. The Loewden book probably shouldn't be used except to state that he has a book and believes he thinks Buchanan was homsexual, as if this should matter at all. Certainly given the persistence of the rumor some other sources should be easy for someone to find. Not a big deal. I do believe that this information is worthy to be included and better sourcing can go a long way toward silencing those who don't believe it, or think that speculation of this nature is somehow anti-=American or evil. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiablity and attribution, and this is pretty easily verfiable based upon what I know and have researched over the last couple hours. Anyway, sorry this is so disjointed I feel like I am responding to a thousand people.IvoShandor 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Loweden isn't used is he? Hmm. Don't know about the other books, in general peer reviewed sources are better than biographies. I think that readers should be entitled to see the mainstream historical view when coming to Wiki, which isn't always accurately presented in biographies. But the contemporary press statement needs an inline cite and probably some actual articles from the day as such. IvoShandor 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeing that Loewden isn't used as a source. Ivo, I think your suggestions sound reasonable.  Would you mind taking a crack at Bambino's proposal with the edits you suggest?--David Shankbone 13:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I will have to search through some newspaper databases, maybe later today?IvoShandor 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More sources can certainly only help, however, after taking another look at the Salon article, I still can't fathom what the problem with it is. In fact, it just seems to support what Baker says in her bio of Buchanan.
 * Baker: On the basis of slender evidence, mostly the circumstances of his bachelorhood and three asides by contemporaries about his effeminacy, Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president. Referring to his femininity, Andrew Jackson once called him an "Aunt Nancy."
 * Salon: When Kramer first announced at the Madison meeting that he was setting out to get gays their "first gay president," he could have made his job easier by looking to Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan. The only bachelor to take office, Buchanan spent 15 years living with Sen. William King. The contemporary press ridiculed the men's relationship mercilessly, and Andrew Jackson once called King "Miss Nancy."
 * So, the Salon article doesn't seem to have any more agenda than Baker - who herself has none. --G2bambino 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me a clear difference exists between Baker who qualifies her statement with "On the basis of slender evidence" and Salon which actually AMPLIFIES its statement with (referring to Kramer finding America's first gay president) "He could have made his job easier by..." clearly implying that Buchanan was (or at least was probably) gay. Seems that each couches their discusion in a very different tone.  You'll note that even still--pending delving deeper into Klein's lengthy bio of Buchanan, which I now have--I've included the Salon reference in my proposal below.K. Scott Bailey 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Salon article makes it clear that some - one of whom being Kramer - have a mission to tag someone as "America's first gay president." The author is saying it would have been easier for these gay advocates to target Buchanan because of his circumstances that we've been talking about here. It's simply a report on the mission of those who are the subject of the article; the article does not purport to support or oppose their agenda in any way. --G2bambino 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you do with the Salon author's editorial statement Kramer "could have made his job easier by" targeting Buchanan? To me, this seems clear that the author is taking the VERY non-neutral POV (in contrast with Baker) that Buchanan was very likely gay.  One way or the other, we have the same basic information from better sources, and we can acknowledge the speculation without having to give undue weight TO those speculations of people who have a clear and admitted agenda.K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #2 from K. Scott Bailey

 * For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, William Rufus King . King later became Vice President under Franklin Pierce, He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The phrase "Miss Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men beginning in 1842.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship.  While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship", and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time.  Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, no conclusive evidence exists showing that King and Buchanan were, in fact, homosexual.

Comments

 * This is an honest attempt at compromise. I made a few changes to Bambino's proposal, but nothing TOO significant, I don't think. One change was to reword the sentence that referenced the two men's books that make the factual claim that Buchanan was gay.  Another was to remove the quotes from the last sentence, and move the Baker ref tag to the end, as she makes a VERY similar assertion in concluding her short treatment of the subject.  I have left the Salon reference in, against my better judgement, as it seems to take as fact that was gay in saying that the guy claiming Lincoln was gay would have a much easier time with Buchanan.  It's one of the main reasons I don't think Salon is a truly neutral POV source.  I left it in, though, so there shouldn't be too much argument there.  Thoughts?K. Scott Bailey 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In looking at the above proposal, sentence #1 is awkward, and perhaps too long. A reworking of that sentence might be in order.K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular issue with this. --David Shankbone 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Jackson call him "Aunt Fancy" or "Aunt Nancy"? --David Shankbone 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Boller in Not So, he referred to KING as "Miss Nancy." A congressman (and political rival) named Aaron Brown apparently referred to King as "Aunt Fancy", again according to Not So.  Not So is a very anecdotal book, so I'm not certain where they source these two, but it was apparently in a letter written by Brown, and a comment made by Jackson.K. Scott Bailey 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems it was either "Aunt Nancy" or "Miss Nancy." Perhaps the paragraph should mention both versions and ascribe them to Jackson.  Besides the awkward first sentence, and the unnecessary and dubious assertion of "close friend," I have no problem with the proposal. --G2bambino 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Boller reports that the wife of a political foe called Buchanan "Old Gurley" apparently as a slur regarding his effeminate features. I don't think we have the space to report every name that someone called either Buchanan or King in the article, as it tends to lend undue weight to the insults, in my view.K. Scott Bailey 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the insertion of "close friend" in ANY way "dubious"? The major biography (500+ pages) by Philip S. Klein, President James Buchanan: A Biography', plus Baker's minor work refers to them as such.  Additionally, it troubles me now that I've had a chance to peruse Klein's major work, that he mentions only in passing (p. 111) anything that could be construed as an acknowledgement of the supposed rampant speculation.  It makes me wonder just how "rampant" it was.  Here's the only thing in the entire book regarding King that could be construed in the way that Loewen seems to take as fact:


 * He sought out his friend Senator William R. King of Alabama and they arranged for lodgings together. The usual talk about the character of "southern gentlemen" caused a good deal of amusement among northerners, but if anyone merited respect for his personal qualities, it was King. He would now be vice-president if the party had heeded Buchanan's advice, but because of a nonelection by the Electoral College, the Democrats would probably wind up with Col. Richard M. Johnson, a profligate from Kentucky who lived with a Mulatto and gave northerners good reason to sneer at southern pretensions to gentility.  King presently sat as president, pro tempore, of the Senate.  Washington had begun to refer to him and Buchanan as "the Siamese twins."


 * That's it. Klein--in by FAR the most extensive Buchanan biography available in my library--makes no other mention of whispers, rumors or what-have-you.  It leaves me troubled anew as to the inclusion of any more than a passing reference to the inclusion of the rumors and speculation.  If the most extensive biography on Buchanan failed to do more than barely HINT at the speculation, should WP devote even as much as an entire paragraph to it?  This is an honest question, and is not intended to in any way inflame anyone's passions.K. Scott Bailey 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is worth considering. The reviews I found on JSTOR of Klein's book suggest, additionally that it is well-regarded as the definitive biography of the man, and one review goes to some length to discuss how good Klein's treatment of Buchanan's personal life is.  None of the reviews seem disappointed by a lack of attention to the issue of Buchanan's possible homosexuality.  That being said, wikipedia is not a judicious academic biography.  It is what it is, and if there's not a reasonably full discussion of the issue in this article, people will keep adding it in.  It'd be better to work out a carefully  stated paragraph on the issue than to remove it and keep having to fight over this over and over  again. john k 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I find Scott's proposal to be a good one, and better, I think, than the previous version.  I would wholeheartedly support such a version. john k 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments. I've spent the better part of this afternoon (I have my own business, so I can give myself time off!) poring through the work available. I have read every scrap in the library that references both King and Buchanan. The only one who seems to speculate definitively is Loewen (it seems in pursuit of a clear agenda), while Boller makes some leaps of logic, but does not seem to be nearly so agenda-driven.  Baker deals with the slurs most definitively, and also most dispassionately, while Klein declines to even address them beyond page 111 of a 500+ page book.K. Scott Bailey 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Available References
President James Buchanan: A Biography, by Philip S. Klein
 * Seems to be a completely dispassionate biography.

Not So!, by Paul F. Boller, Jr., Professor of History Emeritus, Texas Christian University.
 * Seems to be a fairly dispassionate work of popular history. Prof. Boller draws some conclusions that require some speculation (i.e. That Buchanan wasn't gay in the strictest sense of engaging in homosexual activity, but had "inclinations" that were "unmistakeably homosexual"), but does not seem--in my opinion, at least--to be agenda-driven in any way.

James Buchanan, by Jean H. Baker, Professor of History, Goucher College
 * Seems to be fairly dispassionate. Discusses rumors and speculation that were spread at the time regarding Buchanan and King, seeming to dismiss them as unproveable. Unlike Boller, she does not proffer her opinion regarding what Buchanan's "inclinations" might be.

Lies Across America, by James W. Loewen, who (according to the dust jacket) "taught race relations at the University of Vermont"
 * Not dispassionate at all, Loewen begins his Buchanan section with the assertion that "the highest office ever won by a closeted [emphasis in original] gay person was the presidency of the United States..." He proceeds apace, simply assuming what no other source assumes: that Buchanan was "not very far in the closet." He also blatantly mischaracterizes the slur "the Siamese twins" as a veiled reference to King and Buchanan's supposed homosexuality, when Klein makes it clear in his MUCH more extensive work, that it actually referred to how close the two were POLITICALLY.  It is my view that this is the only one of the four books that is completely out-of-bounds, even to be referred to in the insertion in the article.  Loewen's POV-pushing is SO over-the-top that to even include it in passing as I have above is to give it undue weight in my view.

Listening to America, by Stuart Berg Flexner, former professor of English Literature and Linguistics, Cornell University
 * This is clearly a secondary reference, and only serves to define what "Miss Nancy" meant at the time. I don't have a major problem including it, but I think the phrase "Miss Nancy" has a relatively self-evident meaning, which would allow us to leave out this reference.  Either way is fine with me.

I have intentionally excluded Salon.com, as the information found in that article (which is not as bad as Loewen, but seems to have a clearly non-neutral POV) can be sourced to other places, specifically Not So!.

Thoughts on the above analysis? K. Scott Bailey 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be offline this evening. Internet connection is currently unreliable.  If so, I look forward to seeing some opinions on both my proposed entry, and the above analysis of sources.K. Scott Bailey 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal--Attempt to Establish Consensus
For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King. King later became Vice President under Franklin Pierce, He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The phrase "Miss Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men beginning in 1842.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship. While Buchanan and King's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions as to what relationship the two men had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship", and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, currently no evidence exists showing that King and Buchanan had any type of sexual relationship.

Support

 * 1) Support. This is fine, although I might modify a bit further, and change around the wording for the end, in particular (N.B. I added to it slightly, so that it explains that King was an Alabama senator.) john k 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Save for the final sentence. "Homosexual" as a personally defining label is a modern concept infused with socio-political meaning that would have been foreign to Buchanan and King, as opposed to acts that are homosexual in nature, which do not depend on time or place for definition. Therefore, I prefer something like the final sentence I suggested earlier: "...no conclusive evidence exists to affirm whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in mutual sexual relations." --G2bambino 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Without comment (as requested). NickBurns 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support DrKiernan 09:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * The reference numbers are way off. This is a byproduct of my insufficient formatting knowledge.  I apologize.K. Scott Bailey 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the reworked end of the final sentence?K. Scott Bailey 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I prefer the current revision is that it feels more NPOV, and doesn't give undue weight to the speculation, while not denying that such speculation DOES exist.K. Scott Bailey 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, "conclusive" seems a bit of a weasel word, implying that there actually IS some "evidence" when there is none at all, only speculation. Your version also seems unnecessarily wordy--less succinct and to the point than the current revision.K. Scott Bailey 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, conclusive evidence means that which would affirm without a doubt what went on, as opposed to inconclusive evidence, which is all we have. Also, your revised ending now reads as though it is a foregone conclusion that King and Buchanan did not have sexual relations, and those who suspect they did don't have the evidence to topple this "fact."  The truth of the matter is there's no evidence to irrefutably support either claim.  I'd also put "America's first homosexual president" in quotations, as it's really an unfounded claim made by others.  So, I suggest: "Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was 'America's first homosexual president,' currently no evidence exists to affirm whether or not King and Buchanan had any type of sexual relationship." --G2bambino 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. There is NO evidence regarding whether or not they had sexual relations, inconclusive or otherwise.  All there is regarding that is speculation based on the fact that they shared a house for 15 years and they cared deeply for each other.  And the phrase "affirm whether or not" is a logical fallacy.  You can't PROVE a negative, only a positive.  If there's no evidence they did, then we're left with nothing more than speculation, which the current draft acknowledges freely, but to which it does not lend undue weight.K. Scott Bailey 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is evidence for both arguments:
 * Buchanan was 100% heterosexually oriented: Buchanan was to be married, he loved his fiancee deeply, he flirted with women.
 * Buchanan was partly homosexually oriented: Buchanan lived with another man for fifteen years, he never married, he had effeminate tendencies
 * Of course, neither set of facts prove either claim right or wrong. It's speculation to say he was straight, and it's speculation to say he was not.
 * And it certainly can be affirmed that someone did not do something. Don't be silly.
 * My suggested final sentence remains as above. --G2bambino 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with G2bambino  that this would be preferable. john k 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the fact that he lived with a male friend for 15 years isn't "evidence" of anything other than that he lived with a male friend for 15 years. And there are plenty of heterosexual men who have effeminate characteristics. The exceptional claim (per the oft-cited WP:REDFLAG) is the claim against the definitive biography of Buchanan (Klein's work), which never even HINTS that he was homosexual. As such, your suggested final sentence gives undue weight to a perspective that has no evidence other than speculation to support it. Status quo is assumed. The exceptional claim demands proof, or must not be given undue weight, simply because speculation regarding the claim exists. My draft does not give undue weight to the claim, while also not ignoring the existence of such speculation--which is all it is.K. Scott Bailey 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that Buchanan is straight unless proved otherwise. I'm not sure why we should assume that. john k 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the status quo, which is proper. Homosexuality is not the status quo per the definitive biography by Klein, thus it falls on the exceptional claim to have some form of evidence to support it, otherwise the proposed edit gives undue weight to that which is not the status quo.K. Scott Bailey 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I ask you both again to point out the problem with my OWN final sentence. If there's no real problem with it, there's no need to change it.K. Scott Bailey 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the status quo mean?


 * Please explain to me where this sentence is either factually inaccurate, or maintains a non-neutral POV. "Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, currently no evidence exists showing that King and Buchanan had any type of sexual relationship." Aside from one of these two issues (factually inaccurate or non-neutral POV), I simply can't justify making such significant changes to it.K. Scott Bailey 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clearly trying to push the POV that they did not have a sexual relationship. The fact is, there is some tenuous circumstantial evidence which has suggested to some people the possibility  of a sexual relationship.  It's clearly pretty weak, and highly inconclusive, but it's not "no evidence".  Beyond that, I have no idea what you mean by "the status quo". What are you talking about?  Klein doesn't appear to discuss Buchanan's sexuality much at all - he certainly doesn't explore the issues with King, as far as I can tell.  So how can the consensus position from that be that Buchanan wasn't gay?  Klein doesn't address the issue.  He ignores it. john k 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not trying to push the POV that he wasn't gay. If I were doing that, I'd simply not even mention the rumors.  All that sentence is doing is pointing out the fact--and it is a fact--that there's no evidence to show that they ever had any sexual relationship, which is objectively true.  The sentence is factually accurate, and completely NPOV.  Unless you can point out where exactly it strays from the facts at hand, or how exactly it's not NPOV, I see no reason to change it.K. Scott Bailey 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, take a look at the sentence again. It doesn't say "they never had" sexual relations, it says that despite the speculation, there's no EVIDENCE that they ever had sexual relations.  It makes no comment on whether or not Buchanan had "homosexual inclinations" as Boller believes.  I'm telling you, there's no need to change this last sentence, especially to one as unwieldy as the one proposed, and which seems to imply that there's SOME evidence that Buchanan had sex with King (even if it's not "conclusive" per the proffered revision), which there's not.  No evidence exists, conclusive or otherwise, that they were anything other than close friends who lived together for 15 years, and that some of the people who didn't like them at the time speculated about them.  Any sentence implying otherwise (as the revision clearly does) ventures out into POV problems itself.K. Scott Bailey 13:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And there's no evidence to affirm they did not have sexual relations. Both views must be treated equally; your wording subtly gives support to one side and leaves the other proofless.  There is no "status quo," only assumptions, and we must treat them all as such, including the assertion that he never had homosexual relations. --G2bambino 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bambino, that's a logical fallacy. There's no "evidence" to "affirm" that I didn't have sex with a dog this morning, but I didn't.  I know that's an outrageous example, but it illustrates the point.  You need evidence to prove that something happened, not that it didn't happen.K. Scott Bailey 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What? You could have evidence that affirms you did not have sex with a dog this morning: witnesses, video footage, DNA samples, etc.  This is how people who are convicted of a crime prove their innocence - they prove they did not do something.  Your words, on the other hand, already rule Buchanan as a man who was exclusively heterosexual - you've become the judge, taken the evidence, and made your own conclusion.  That violates NPOV.
 * I'm glad we've come to the point where we're only debating one small part of a sentence, but really, your objections to "currently no evidence exists to affirm whether or not King and Buchanan had any type of sexual relationship" is really quite incomprehensible. --G2bambino 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're just wrong, Bambino. I don't HAVE to prove I didn't have sex with a dog this morning, because if someone said I did, THEY would have to prove it.  And I don't have video footage showing me every second of the morning.  I certainly had enough time away from witnesses (I'm single), video cameras, etc. to have sex with a dog.  If someone accused me of doing so, they'd have to prove that affirmative declaration.  I would not have to prove my negative declaration, "I did not have sex with a dog."


 * As for you crime example, a defendant doesn't have to PROVE their innocence, the prosecution has to PROVE their guilt. You have to offer evidence for the affirmative declaration, not the negative.  Additionally, you make an affirmative statement that my final sentence in some way offers my own opinion on the matter.  However, I have made my opinion known: I think he probably at least had homosexual tendencies or inclinations.  My opinion doesn't matter though.  All my final sentence does is state what the facts of the case are: there's no evidence showing that King and Buchanan ever had sex. There's no POV problems at all with objectively stating what the facts are.  Your revisions give undue weight to the speculations, by giving the impression that there's SOME evidence (which there's not, as speculation does not qualify under any evidenciary standard) by adding either the word "conclusive" or the phrase "whether or not."K. Scott Bailey 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My, these cyclical arguments are growing very tiresome. I'm going to put this aside for a while and let others reach a consensus. --G2bambino 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a cyclical argument. Show me exactly how there are any factual problems with my last sentence, and HOW it violates NPOV to simply write a sentence that states what the facts are: there's no evidence to show that the two men had sex. How is that cyclical?
 * For the record, I do respect your opinion on this, but I don't see how changing the last sentence improves the proposal at all. As you said though, let's see what others have to say.K. Scott Bailey 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely we can find some different phrasing that would be acceptable to everyone? To be honest, I don't especially love either of your phrasing. How about, "There is, however, no clear evidence of a sexual relationship between Buchanan and King." ? That softens Scott's formulation somewhat, without going so far as Bambino's. I also think that putting the emphasis on "whether they had sexual relations" is part of the problem here. The real issue is what the precise nature of their friendship is - was it purely platonic, was it romantic, but not explicitly sexual, or was it sexual?  Including the words "sexual relations" makes it only about the last, which seems problematic. Beyond that, I think these legal analogies are really getting r ather silly, and aren't really relevant. This isn't a case at law, it is an encyclopedia article, and using legal analogies about burdens of proof and so forth will only confuse matters. john k 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To add the word "clear" again implies that there's some evidence that they DID have a sexual relationship, which there is not. The sentence I have there now is factually correct, and takes no position on whether or not there actually WAS a relationship. It states simply what the facts are: there's no EVIDENCE that they had one.  That much is objectively true.  If you know of some, let me know, because I spent 4 or 5 hours yesterday poring over every scrap I could find about Buchanan/King, and I could find not one bit of evidence that they had sex.K. Scott Bailey 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --G2bambino 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, could someone fix the current formatting for my refs? I don't know how to do it.K. Scott Bailey 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, even Boller--who thinks Buchanan was probably gay (by the modern definition of the word)--doesn't think the two had sex. I can't remember what the exact page is, but it's in the section dealing with both Buchanan and Lincoln, and it's on the last page of that chapter.  He cites both the lack of evidence, and the fact that Buchanan was a VERY political man, who would not have risked it all for such a relationship.  Just thought I'd let you know about Boller's views, since he's cited as a source.K. Scott Bailey 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, the exact nature of their relationship can only remain uncertain. ? john k 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that sentence is factually accurate, as the "exact nature" of their relationship is known by the evidence we have to be a close friendship. No evidence points any other way, since speculation can hardly be called "evidence."  Does the speculation merit mention as notable?  Sure.  It's too widespread NOT to mention.  But it should not be given undue weight by the implication that there's actually ANY hard evidence to support it, because there is not.K. Scott Bailey 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, whatever. Yours isn't bad enough for it to be worth all this. john k 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it would be "modern" speculation. Second, speculation by whom?  If it's speculation by some guy out to sell a book or by some political group with an agenda to push, then I hardly see why we'd want to muddy up a scholarly article.  On the other hand, if scholars - in peer reviewed works - are speculating about his sexualty, then, and only then, would it be worth writing up in this article.  Rklawton 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, are you against even my current proposal? If so, I would encourage you to take a look at my "Analysis of Sources Available" (I think that's what I called it) above, as it details why I felt the preponderance of evidence argued at least for a one paragraph summary of the speculation, sans Salon and Loewen as "sources."K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be helpful to check JSTOR for any relevant, peer-reviewed, work on this topic. If you do, I suspect you'll get your paragraph.  I wouldn't dismiss Listening to America.  It's no more secondary than the other sources, and an English professor would have some useful insights into the phrase "Aunt Nancy" - which appears to have energized much of this discussion.  Given the time period, I wonder if such a phase might not be applied to a man who lacked any inclination toward duelling.  If so, the phrase may have no other meaning than to insult someone who refuses to be provoked - in short, nothing more than a playground taunt.  That's just speculation on my part.  I think I'll give Listening to America a read.  Rklawton 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Baker's biography clearly discusses the rumors, without actually coming down in favor of their truth.  Why is this not sufficient?  john k 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the peer reviewed is the way to go, especially when dealing with history, other stuff is just that, stuff. Its not history by historians. A historians work is peer reviewed, a rigorous academic process, even more so than any mass media publication in the United States. Anyone can assert anything they want in a book that isn't peer reviewed or an article. That being said, effort should be made to find these sources. I didn't see anything on JSTOR at first glance but have yet to do more specific searching. IvoShandor 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain whether or not you and Rklawton will support the current proposal I've crafted or not. I'm also not sure what JSTOR is exactly, nor how to access it.  I'd be interested to find out how to use this apparent resource.K. Scott Bailey 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JSTOR is a database of scholarly journals, full text, it is a few years behind but a great archive. Libraries, both university and public often have access for their patrons. IvoShandor 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on...
Nine people voted for the first proposal above. Why don't we just go with that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Dev. The original proposal by GBAmbino has 9 supports and only one oppose. The alternate version (by the one who opposes) has 3 supports. It seems obvious to me which direction the wind is blowing, and it also seems a shame the page is protected in a version which goes against consensus. Jeffpw 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. Will somebody contact User:Physicq210 and let him know to unprotect the page; by the way, it's odd that this page has been protected indefintely from editing - that is an unusual step for an admin to take over one paragraph.  If he doesn't, bring it up on the admin noticeboard and another admin will likely find this indefinite protect extreme and unprotect it.  Pages shouldn't be protected like this over small issues, in which there is widespread agreement.  At this point, the differences are trifles.  --David Shankbone 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems quite clear that not only Scott, but Rklawton and perhaps Ivo, all would have problems with that version.  But beyond that, it seems to me that the differences between G2bambino's version and  Scott's version are not sufficiently large that the answer is to impose a (super-)majority solution on the whole thing.  We've gotten down to a fairly low level of disagreement.  Why don't we try and see if we can actually get to a consensus, rather than imposing a version that we know does not have one? john k 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not at odds with the information, I just think articles on history need the best sources. Why would anyone use the Wiki for there information if its not the best and more reliable information could be found elsewhere? As far as history goes only academic sources represent the mainstream historical view. IvoShandor 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not support any version that mentions Loewen in any way, nor that gives undue weight to the rumors. This is nothing personal against Bambino, it's simply based upon my view that to even imply that there is any evidence at all to support the speculation--which there is not--does a disservice to the article.K. Scott Bailey 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't think Loewen is pertinent to the paragraph, and more of an aside. If that is the one issue that is standing in the way, then let's remove it.  --David Shankbone 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the article should be unprotected anyway. We're all adults, and I think we can avoid an edit war without stopping other people who want to make substantive edits that aren't related to Aunt Fancy.  What's important on the Aunt Fancy Front is the rumors and the circumstantial "evidence" - not Loewen.  Regardless; I think we can continue our discussion whilst allowing others to edit in the other sections.  --David Shankbone 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My only reason for including Lowen was because his work substantiates the claim that contemporary people have speculated on Buchanan; it provides an example - that's all. If there was a logical argument not to include it, I'd be more receptive.  But I frankly don't really care whether it's in or out; I just have a problem with information being excluded on emotional grounds. --G2bambino 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I think the reasons given for excluding Loewen are without merit (and if you look through this page, you'll see that the same editors tried the same reasons for Baker earlier in this disagreement). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiabliity, pure and simple. People can scream WP:REDFLAG until the cows come home and that will still not make it apply here as a case for excluding these references. I fail to understand why, when an editor simply does not care for the subject matter to be included, they can raise the threshold for what qualifies as an acceptable reference. I say consensus has been achieved with GBambino's version above. Consensus doesn't imply unanimity; it implies general agreement. And by the way, it seems premature at best to disqualify references on the basis that this article at some unspecified point in the future may become a Feature Article. Let it achieve GA status first before we try to saddle that particular horse to a cart. Jeffpw 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Loewen should be mentioned in the article text - the current phrasing is rather awkward, I think. I don't have any problem with footnoting him to a statement that there have been rumors about Buchanan's sexuality.  But what I'd really like to see is a version that we all can accept.   I'd much much rather try to come up with something that Scott could be happy with than go with Bambino's version. If you're counting my vote for Bambino's version as part of your 'consensus,' please stop doing so - we're quite close to actual consensus, and I don't think insisting upon one version that has faced strong objections is the best way to move forward.   That said, I agree with David that the article ought to be unprotected. john k 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, John, could you explain why you think we're close to consensus here? Because I will not be pleased if Loewen is not included as a reference mentioned in the article. If what you mean when you say consensus is that we're reaching a point where appeasing Scott is the easiest way to go forward, hadn't you best just say that? Jeffpw 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we include a paragraph in the Giza pyramid complex article about how space aliens might be responsible for building them? After all more than one book has discussed this theory in detail.  The answer is, of course not - and for the same reason Loewen does not belong in this article.  Rklawton 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the Loewen thing really what's important here? Why is it important to cite Loewen?  I don't give a fuck about Loewen, and the particular phrasing of his mention in Bambino's version is awkward.  Loewen also sucks, so there's that (although he's obviously not comparable to Von Däniken).  I believe we're close to a consensus because the differences between Scott's version and Bambino's are not very large, and because several of us who want to have a discussion of the issue in the article (including G2Bambino) found Scott's version to be pretty close to  acceptable.  The discussion has been progressing towards a consensus, even if there have been some frustrating setbacks, and I think that continued discussion is likely to come up with a version that is more or less acceptable to everyone  (except possibly Rklawton).  If  that means I'm "appeasing" Scott, then so be it - it was my understanding that the process of consensus is achieved by  "appeasing" all interested parties, so that they are satisfied with the article. john k 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Loewen is not cited as a reference in Bambino's version, John. The paragraph simply mentions that he speculated in his book that Buchanan was gay. That is a verifiable fact, and worthy of inclusion. To cut that out of the article does a disservice to our readers, in my opinion. Jeffpw 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Loewen of such significance that it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article text that he is one of the people who made this speculation? Why is it worthy of inclusion?  Loewen is not an expert on Buchanan, and hasn't written a widely read popular biography of Buchanan, or anything of the sort.  He has  a brief section about Buchanan in a book.  Why is his discussion of this worthy of specific mention? john k 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay guys, I'm out. This Talk page is starting to resemble a grade school cafeteria.  Instead of looking at the fact that everybody agrees about 90% of Bambino's proposal, which is cause to get the page unprotected and get at least some of the information out there for readers, we are arguing over some random guy named Loewen.  The sarcasm injected above doesn't help matters (and it is especially unbecoming of admins, who are supposed to set higher standards for discourse on Talk pages; doing so doesn't lend much credibility to their admin status or arguments).  Instead, it seems like everyone wants to stick to their guns, and barely budge.  This page has been protected for too long, and that's poor Wiki, especially over one issue over which there is virtual conensus by all parties.  But everybody wants their way.  So, I'm joining Nick Burns - you all know where I stand, so good luck with this war of attrition.  It looks pretty ridiculous.  Have a nice day!  --David Shankbone 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anybody have any objections to archiving some of this page, simply so that we don't all begin to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome before this debate is resolved? Jeffpw 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree --David Shankbone 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still way too long, but I think everything left on this page is essential until the situation is resolved. Jeffpw 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone's proposal
--David Shankbone 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Request the article be unprotected.
 * 2) Include the paragraph without Loewen mentioned, and only without Loewen mentioned; everything else stays.
 * 3) Continue the discussion over Loewen on the Talk page and try to reach a new consensus as to whether he should or should not be included.
 * 4) No edit warring on the main page.
 * Does #2 refer to my version or Bambino's? The support for Loewen seems to be without merit.  All his inclusion does is add undue weight to the rumors.  Unless that's the goal of those arguing for inclusion, I can not understand why he needs to be included.  Loewen states the rumors as FACTS.  Additionally, it appears that there's now SEVERAL people on here that have taken issue with Bambino's proposal.  I'd hardly call that "consensus."  I have made compromises in this discussion, yet it's implied above that I have an agenda of some sort.  I'd appreciate it if those kind of implied attacks would stop.  My proposal was a good faith attempt to find consensus.  It bogged down only after someone took issue with my LAST SENTENCE.K. Scott Bailey 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone is proposing that Loewen be cited as an expert on Buchanan who has argued for a homosexual relationship. Rather, he is to be cited as a writer who has speculated that Buchanan was gay. john k 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And including that speculation both raises issues with WP:REDFLAG (which many are simply proposing we ignore) and creates the problem of giving undue weight to the admitted "speculations" of a non-expert, and to the speculations in general. The speculations can be dealt with without citing specific non-experts (especially those with a clear agenda).K. Scott Bailey 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the general sense of everyone but you is that WP:REDFLAG does not apply. I agree that there are due weight issues with mentioning Loewen specifically, and I see no particular reason to do so. But mentioning him in a footnote as someone who has speculated on Buchanan's homosexuality seems fine. john k 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe both Ivo and Rklawton have, at various times, pointed out concerns per REDFLAG, though the thread is so long I don't know if I could find them. As one of the first things dealt with in the WP:RS guidelines, I hardly think these concerns are trivial at all.  However, I have much LESS of a problem including a footnote only that mentions Loewen as a non-expert author who has speculated on the nature of the Buchanan/King relationship.K. Scott Bailey 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What john k said. Forget biographical books of any sort. Period. They are useless as references in an article on a historical person. Btw . . . I wrote this biography of James Buchanan . . . IvoShandor 07:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think everyone here is civil enough to agree to not edit war. I vow not to and discuss instead, any takers. IvoShandor 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never edit warred on an article, and don't intend to start now. Will KSB also agree not to (I ask because he was blocked for edit warring on this page over this topic). Jeffpw 10:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources
I still argue for academic, peer reviewed sources...did anyone see NBC's lovely report on us (Wikipedia). IvoShandor 08:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ivo, I truly don't mean to be argumentative, but why do you feel that the sources need to be so much loftier than for other articles? The article for Abraham Lincoln doesn't exclusively use peer reviewed, academic sources. The article on FDR uses both Eleanor and Franklin, a popular biography of the couple, and Arthur Schlesinger, a popular, non-peer reviewed historian, as sources. That article is a FA. Nixon's article uses Hunter S. Thompson and a book called A psychobiography of Richard m. Nixon as sources. So it seems inconsistent that we may use only peer reviewed, academic sources here, if other sources meet WP:ATT. According to WP:ATT (which is policy and supersedes WP:RS, which was a guideline, and is now poised to be an historical document), The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Jeffpw 09:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We should for information likely to be challenged, that seems obvious to me Not sure why it doesn't to anyone else, I can only speak for myself. IvoShandor 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I don't think anybody wants to actually use Loewen as a reference. It just seems highly selective (bordering on censoring, in my view) not to at least mention that his book speculates as to whether Buchanan was gay or not. Jeffpw 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff - Arthur Schlesinger and a popular biography of the Roosevelts are not comparable to Loewen.  Among other things, Loewen has done no research of his own on Buchanan - he relies entirely on secondary sources, doesn't he? john k 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ivo, you're on your own. There are people on here who seem somehow emotionally invested in getting Loewen's distinctly non-neutral POV into the article for some reason.  As this is a deal-breaker for me (anyone who has read his polemic will understand why), I'll let you try to reason with these guys, as I inevitably get frustrated when I attempt to compromise, and they won't move.  Good luck.K. Scott Bailey 12:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check again, but I don't think there is any policy against using sources with a point of view. In fact, I'd venture that if you checked all the sources Wikipedia uses, they would all have a point of view. Finally, historians are supposed to have a point of view and argue for it - otherwise they really aren't using their skills as historians. If the Loewen book is mentioned in the context of being one person's argument, not universally accepted fact, then it isn't us pushing a POV. It's us presenting someone else's point of view and marking it as such. Natalie 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary style
Given that there is an article Sexuality of James Buchanan, why don't you have the argument there and then import the lead paragraph per WP:SUMMARY? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That article is badly in need of a rewrite, which I've offered to help with. The lead paragraph currently is the following:
 * One of the more interesting debates about a president may be the debate over the sexuality of the fifteenth president of the United States, James Buchanan. This theory was publicized by James Loewen in the book Lies Across America, but was not originated by Loewen. (For example, it was discussed by historian Paul Boller is his book Not So! published several years earlier.)
 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing, but if it's inclusion of this paragraph in the main article, I could not support that. Better a further truncation of either G2B's proposal or my own than that.K. Scott Bailey 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say that I am in agreement with KSB here. That article is a mess, and needs a rewrite of its own to meet Wikipedia standards.


 * After considering the matter, I am prepared to retreat from my position that Loewen be included in this article, if that is the only stumbling block to getting a sexuality paragraph included and the page unprotected. To be perfectly clear about things: I never wanted Loewen to be used as a reference; I only wanted to include a sentence that said he (among others) had speculated about Buchanan's possible homosexuality. However, that is already included in the other article, and we can certainly wikilink to that article. Jeffpw 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And as postulations like Loewen's are the very point of the other article, I have no qualms about citing his book myself in the rewrite of that article.K. Scott Bailey 12:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems like we have reached consensus about the paragraph for this article. If someone couid just write it below, and we can (hopefully) all sign off on it, then we can request the page be unprotected and move forward. Jeffpw 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King. King later became Vice President under Franklin Pierce. He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, and four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." Further, some of the contemporary press also speculated about Buchanan and King's relationship. Buchanan and King's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions as to what relationship the two men had, but surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship", and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, there is currently no hard evidence that King and Buchanan had a sexual relationship.

Please vote below, limiting comments to the "Comments" section only.

Support
DrKiernan 09:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I attempted to rework the last sentence especially, as that seemed a major point of contention. I also removed the explanation of "Aunt Fancy" as that seemed self-evident, and can be explored more fully in the stand-alone article, along with the Loewen book, the Salon article, and other sources that were in dispute in the main article. I also realize that the references are currently all fouled up from a technical perspective. I'm admittedly not very good at formatting references.K. Scott Bailey 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bit too circumspect. The explanation of "Nancy" seems like a good idea, especially since it is supported by a reference. I also think Salon is OK as a reference--if you look above, you'll see that they are considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source. I also think the first sentence needs a bit of work, as it is somewhat ambiguous on the timeline. Maybe give the exact dates they lived together (years, anyway). For the rest, I think it is something I could live with. Jeffpw 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that this is an historical subject with plenty of peer-reviewed academic material available, there's no reason to use a non-academic source such as Salon. I won't object if you do (for reasons that will be clear in a moment), but I'd be remiss not to point out that as soon as a group dedicated to upgrading presidential biographies from the lower classes to GA or FA status takes an interest in this article, then the Salon source and this modern, manufactured "controversy" won't likely remain.  You've received sound advice about how to approach this topic.  You've gone on the record as ignore it.  For now, that's what matters most.  Rklawton 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Jeffpw's points, however, I might add that perhaps it should be clarified that it is modern people who've dubbed Buchanan "America's first homosexual president," and I'd put that phrase in quotations, as I've just done. As for the Salon article undermining this article's ability to meet higher standards of quality: hogwash. There are plenty of FA articles that use "non-academic" sources like magazines, newspapers, and almost infinite other types.  If the source passes WP:RS, it passes Wikipedia standards. --G2bambino 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To rebut this point, keep in mind that not all articles are equal. An FA quality article on a pop-singer will meet different standards than an article on a well known, historical figure.  When high quality academic materials exist, as it does in this case, there's no reason to use anything less.  It's OK if you don't believe me.  If I'm right, it'll work out just fine in the end.  Rklawton 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to find a compromise amenable to all. My take is that the article is better served by excluding sources like Salon and Loewen in favor of more sober treatments done by the other sources.  Additionally, the only reason I cut the "Aunt Nancy" explanation is because it will be more fully addressed in the other article, and it seemed like a "cuttable" section, in the interest of being succinct.  If anyone feels it needs to be reinserted, I have no problem with that.K. Scott Bailey 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Several points: 1) I don't like your tone, Rklawton; it is bordering on uncivil, and is definitely not helpful when we are so close to achieving consensus. Nobody is ignoring your advice; we are discussing it. 2) I am not pathologically attached to using Salon as a reference, but I disagree with the assertion that it cannot be used in this article as it progresses. Salon is a) a reliable source; b) other articles on presidents use sources that are non-academic (see discussion above); and c) this article is currently a "B" class article. Wiki is not a crystal ball, and neither are you, Rklawton. Let's concentrate on the here and now, rather than some hypothetical point in the future when this article may or may not be nominated for special recognition. 3) We are not talking about using Salon in place of the academic references, but rather to support the academic references. It seems silly, in my opinion, to disregard references if they are available. Particularly with a topic so controversial (to some), it seems the more references, the better. Jeffpw 08:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If you'll take a second look, you'll notice that it wasn't I who referred to another editor's reasoning as "hogwash" but the other way around.  2)  I never used the term " pathological" 3)  "Above" there are no references to 19th century presidential articles using non-academic sources.  Indeed, no one has yet produced a peer-reviewed academic source on this topic all.  4)  Peer-reviewed references don't need Salon.com for support.  5)  More is not better.  Replacing low quality references with high quality references is better.  6)  Crystal balling refers to predicting the outcome of events described in an article - and qualifies as original research.  Crystal balling has nothing to do with reminding editors that Wikipedia has some pretty high standards for elevating an article's class - standards that vary somewhat by subject - but standards that are obviously high for a 19th century presidential biography.  Reminding editors of this is neither inappropriate, nor uncivil, nor crystal balling.  As I noted above, you're welcome to add it in, but I don't think it will last once editors serious about raising this article's quality classification start working on it.  Rklawton 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

TWO EDITS I MADE

I am new to Wikipedia. I saw that it was "the encyclopedia anyone can edit' and I went merrily ahead, editing away, not even knowing about edit summaries - let alone discussing it first with other users.

I made two edits:

The first attempts to clarify Buchanan's brief military service in the War of 1812 and to point out that he volunteered despite being a committed opponent of the War.

The second (in the Post-presidency and legacy section) tries to discuss the way in which historians freely criticize Buchanan's failure to deal with the Secession Crisis but never tell us what he should have done. I thought that this was a point that needed to be made: but because I lack skill in writing, the passage comes across as more opinionated than I had intended.

Perhaps some of you guys can tell me whether you think that making this point is a suitable thing to do in a factual encyclopedia such as Wikipedia? Or perhaps suggest how the point could be made in a less argumentative manner?

I do not wish to make any more edits without running it past other users - I have done enough of that already!

Flonto 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about the trivia
From trivia section in the article: "James Buchanan, born April 23rd 1791, is the first President to be born a United States citizen of the Original 13 States and is, therefore, arguably the first American President." James K. Polk was born in 1795, in N. Carolina which was one of the original 13 states, and he was also President before James Buchnan. Unless I'm missing something this bit of "trivia" currently on Buchanan's page is blatantly false. Anyone agree? 80.230.100.123 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)David

Before either one was John Tyler, born in Virginia on March 29th, 1790 (one year before Buchanan), and was the President preceding Polk. That would make Tyler the first "American President" and Polk the first elected "American President." Dabarnes

Hint in article on corruption
The paragraph on historians' 'Historical rankings of United States Presidents' had corruption in brackets. Any truth in this? - maxrspct  ping me   23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Baker book: an ordinary reader confused
Both this page and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/B include a reference to the Jean H. Baker book. However, two radically different opinions seem to have emerged. On that page, it is cited as the lone source for Buchanan's bisexuality. Here, it's the proximal reference for the quote, "there is currently no evidence that King and Buchanan had a sexual relationship". On the surface—and as a non-owner of the book, the surface is all I have—those would seem two diametrically opposed conclusions to draw from the same work. I've posted the question over on that page's Talk, but I'll ask it here, too: what does Baker positively assert about Buchanan's sexuality? CzechOut 08:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Exerpts
The Baker book says: "If you are as happy in entering the White House as I shall feel on returning to Wheatland you are a happy man." However, in Doris Kearns Goodwins' book she says it's: "If you are as happy, my dear sir, on entering this house as I am in leaving it and returning home, you are the happiest man in this country." Explain. PRhyu 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Descent from Stewarts
I have access to documentation of a direct line from President Buchanan to King James and Queen Joan if anyone believes it to be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin of Trondheim (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... I forgot to sign that. Odin of Trondheim (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... The line. James I of Scotland + Joan Beaufort (great-granddaughter of Edward III of England)

Princess Joan (Stewart) + James Douglas, 1st Earl of Morton

John Douglas, 2nd Earl of Morton + Janet Crichton

Agnes (Anne?) Douglas + Alexander Livingston, 5th Lord Livingston

Elizabeth Livingston + John Buchanan

George Buchanan + Elizabeth Leckie

John Buchanan + Agnes Forrester

George Buchanan + Elizabeth Mayne

Thomas Buchanan + Jane (no last name known)

William Alexander Buchanan + (wife's name unknown)

John Buchanan + Jane Russell

James Buchanan + Elizabeth Speer

President James Buchanan

EDIT Source: Pieced together from many trees on RootsWeb, which is owned by The Generations Network (which also owns Ancestry.com).

Odin of Trondheim (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
See Talk:John_C._Breckinridge Jooler (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Weasel word in the opening paragraph.
If someone can cite a specific third party referance claiming to know for a fact, rather than speculate that Buchannan was actually gay, then please add that very important information to the header of the article. If it cannot be added, then the article does not need a weasel word to make the information look as if it is fact when it is only really speculation. That type of information is not relavent to the header of an article and should be reserved for the body of the article, if it can be cited.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In a related story, showing that the theory has currency, the government is considering using Buchanan's portrait on the proposed three-dollar bill. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch on the homosexuality issue, but it did seem weaselish even if sourced to state that "His inability to avert the Civil War has subsequently been assessed as the worst single failure by any President of the United States." Considering the next sentence was already about him being ranked among the worst presidents, this was redundant on top of unnecessarily promoting one view (however widespread). Feel free to discuss if someone disagrees with my decision. Recognizance (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Sexuality of James Buchanan
I figured I'd put a notice here since no one probably recalls the existence of the page anymore. I've nominated it for deletion as a POV fork. Feel free to weigh in. Recognizance (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation
I once read that the name Buchanan was pronounced "buck'-uh-nun" in the 19th century, rather than "byu-ca'-nun" as it is now. This made JB's nickname "old buck" less of a stretch. Can anyone here confirm or deny this datum? thank you 165.91.65.11 (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)RKH

Question about factual statement
I have a question about the following statement in the article.

Buchanan remains most recent of the two Democrats (the other being Martin Van Buren) to succeed a fellow Democrat to the Presidency via election in his own right.

To cite two cases that seem to contradict this, Truman and Johnson both won elections to be president and both succeeded fellow Democrats. I think the author means the most recent who did not originally come into office upon assassination, but that is not the literal statement made.

A minor point perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noetsi (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It says "to succeed a Democrat via election in his own right" right there. The situation you describe is "to succeed a Democrat via the predecessor's death followed by election in his own right" actually. OCNative (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

He lived in the James Buchanan Hotel?
From November 5, 2009 to June 2, 2010, this article stated: "He spent his childhood living in the James Buchanan Hotel" For 7 months, nobody thought to edit that? Brings to question the Reliability of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms2000 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, if you look at the article James Buchanan Hotel, there is a citation that confirms that statement. I'm not an expert on James Buchanan, but the citation looks reasonable. 68.100.146.5 (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Birth Date
The article says Buchanan was born on April 23, but the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission web site says it was April 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.253.141 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Split section: Presidency of James Buchanan
Two reasons I propose the split:


 * 1) The article establishes throughout that his presidency was one of the most significant and consequential in U.S. history, in that he presided over (and incited) a series of clashes over slavery that all culminated in secession, which also happened on his watch. The article cites Buchanan's status as among the worst (and in many polls the worst) President in history, and the historical consensus that his secession policies were the biggest presidential mistake in history. All of this is substantial enough in presidential history to warrant its own page, isn't it?


 * 1) The Presidency section is already over half the article, and there's quite a bit of his presidency that's left out of it: controversy around the makeup of his cabinet; foreign policy, including intrigues with Britain and Latin America; the administration's dealing with the Panic of 1857; etc. It's stuff that deserves inclusion and would make the Presidency section even longer and more capable of standing on its own as an article.

Thoughts? Msclguru (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a separate section under America Civil War for that, in the events leading to section. To be honest, every time I've looked into his administration, he was an utter nightmare. Sorry for the lack of signature, but I am extremely infrequent in contributions to Wikipedia, I'm way too verbose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Counties named after Buchanan
The article says that Buchanan County, Virginia was named after President Buchanan, but the article concerning that county says that the county was named after John Buchanan, a surveyor. Moreover, the Virginia county is pronounced Buck-hannon County, which seems unlikely if it was named after the president.

William H. Wright, Jr. 148.170.241.1 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read that Andrew Jackson referred to him as Buck-hannon but that was in jest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.228.230 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas
How could president Buchannan have had trouble with Kansas in 1854 if his presidency didn't start until 1857? Something's scrambled there, and with Buchannan in England for most of Pierce's presidency, it's probably the date. -- Jeffryfisher (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * good point. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are stamp images sufficiently significant to be included
This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Were space limitations NOT an issue, I'd suggest inclusion, PERHAPS. But, they are NOT necessary to inform one of the president or even the person in question AND space IS important. That said, thanks for providing the link. I may avail myself of it, time permitting, just to add further trivial to my mind in my spare time. Yes, I was serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the link serves the purpose. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the coin image and replaced it with a link to the coin for the same reasons stated above. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A better early life section image
I propose the current image of his ancestral home in Belfast be replace by this image of his own birthplace. I think it is more "significant" per WP image guidelines. Thoughts? Carmarg4 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Buchanan's Birthplace State Park.jpg|thumb|left|Stone pyramid marking the site of Buchanan's birth at Cove Gap, PA Carmarg4 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Was James Buchanan homosexual???
I recently found information from a book that James Buchanan had lived with Rufus King for sixteen years. At least two other references said that Buchanan had an INTIMATE relationship with King. Does this mean Buchanan is our first HOMO-SEXUAL president??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruda556 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

One book as a reference is a bit obscure. Add to that the fact that in that age, staff lived in the same building/house frequently AND intimate is a relative term, especially as I've been intimate with a few men, but never in a sexual manner, but sharing information that I couldn't share with my wife due to my duties, the connotation is specious at best. You are applying a 21st century social filter to 19th century terminology. Hazardous at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.16.223 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one source. It is factual and deserves a mention.99.169.66.28 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I will say it is worth mentioning because many people in the US, and probably elsewhere, don't realize that our concepts of sexuality became more rigid at the end of the 19th century. The current section is fair, I think, but could include more context about earlier 19th century ideas about relationships. I will also say that the quote from Jean H. Baker is just awful. "The best speculation about the sexuality of the nonshaving Buchanan, who in his portraits has the eunichlike, endomorphic features of body and face, as well as the low hairline characteristics of asexual men with low levels of testosterone, is that he had little interest in sex. What is important in his story is the deep friendship he maintained with the southerner King from the time of their first acquaintanceship until the latter's death in 1853."

It would be of more value if it were compared to similar quotes from other historians who are trying to make a summary of their own analysis and opinions. This would make it more clear that this is one person's opinion. Regarding the specifics of her quote: How do we know he didn't shave? If she has some evidence proving this it's relevant context for the factuality of her conclusion. Why does she say he had a "low hairline"? Every image I see shows a man who is clearly balding. Balding is caused by an unmanageable amount of dihydrotestosterone. So those with HIGH testosterone or high levels of the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone lose hair on the top of their heads. So, it is in no way a foregone conclusion that Buchanan lacked testosterone and therefore lacked sexual desire. And the implication that a lack of sexual potency leads to homosexuality, or some sort of asexual desire to find companionship with men, is just a mess. Men who have relationships with men are not automatically "less manly" or "more womanly." Atherva (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't have it both ways. Baker's work is being treated elsewhere in the very same section as a reliable source.  The entire section is speculation and that is all that is available.  You're not going to find a written statement by Buchanan saying "I am a homosexual" because there was no such concept in the 1850s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that it is out of the realm of possibility that he was gay or that he and King had some sort of a relationship. All I can say is that there is no positive affirmation that he was gay, only speculation based on modern day concepts of homosexuality. People talked and did things differently back then. Anything that we look at today as being homosexual, was most usually common practice during the time. Men lived together, especially unmarried men. Lincoln would sometimes sleep in the same bed as his law partner and friend, when traveling. That wouldn't make him gay however, nor would Buchanan having a close personal relationship with another man. Today we call that, best bros.-- JOJ Hutton  02:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the evidence she gives in her summarizing conclusion, her opinion, is non evidence. It's nonsense, really.  Her attempt to decipher a conclusion is different from primary evidence like whom he lived with and when or what he himself wrote in letters.  And I'm not even saying it should be taken out, but other quotes of a similar nature could be included.Atherva (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The opinions of reliable sources are relevant and belong in wikipedia. How is her analysis any different than the conclusions that what Buchanan wrote or who his friends were implied that he was gay?  What quotes from reliable historical sources do you know of that say Buchanan was definitively gay?  The article already includes material (much of it from Baker) explaining why people might think he was gay. Is there some reliably sourced significant evidence missing that you think should be included/ There is a limited amount of space that should be dedicated to a minority opinion -- see WP:WEIGHT.
 * It is not clear why Baker's opinion is any more "nonsense" than opinions that Buchanan was gay. Both are based on speculation, both are consistent with Buchanan's behavior, and neither is contradicted by the type of historical evidence than historians and biographers generally rely on.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Image overcrowding
I have removed the following image due to overcrowding. File:Buchananmural.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Buchanan's Ulster heritage is celebrated in a mural on Belfast's Shankill Road. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image due to overcrowding. Image:James Buchanan in 1860 - Meade Brothers.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Buchanan as photographed by Charles and Henry Meade in 1860. Hoppyh (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The following image was removed due to overcrowding. File:eagle.JPG|thumb|Editorial cartoon in Republican newspapers, 1861. Hoppyh (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following to eliminate overcrowding.File:Hand-colored lithograph of James Buchanan.jpg|thumb|left|Hand-colored lithography|lithograph of Buchanan by Nathaniel Currier. Hoppyh (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section
I believe Buchanan's legacy section is a bit harsh. He could have done more as President during the onset of the American Civil War and deserves criticism. I respect British historians, however, putting in that British historians rank Buchanan as the worst President seems a bit overdone. Presidential rankings tend to be generalizations of Presidents rather then the specific actions done while in office. It would be good if some positive statement was made concerning President Buchanan for balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Double Standards
Suppose Andrew Jackson had nicknamed him "Brawn, a Tiger with the ladies" and the nieces had, instead of burning them, published the letters as examples of the best romantic ladies'-man attitudes from which young men should learn. Who'd be equivocating now and saying "Oh, that occurred, beyond doubt, Jackson said that, but nobody left DIRECT EVIDENCE (written documentation that they walked in on the man at a moment when he was actually having sex with a woman)! See, what Jackson really meant was [insert absurd reading of Jackson's plain English]. And the letters, well, men in the 19th century, even homosexual men, OFTEN wrote of women in that way, praising the feminine IDEAL, the reference to 'drooling just thinking of your ample breasts, naked, as you rend my clothes from my body, inciting me to frenzy' not NECESSARILY being sexual! Language was different back then! Not like TODAY! So it doesn't rule out that he was really homosexual after all!"?

Not one of you would go to such lengths or demand such evidence (of HETEROsexuality), for you know it won't be found. People of any orientation have tended to have sex, when possible, in a partitioned area where non-participants can't witness. Thus eyewitness experiences are rare, limited to accidental intruders (who refrain from documenting the matter as a courtesy) and peeping toms (who refrain from documenting the matter for fear of the consequences of their admission). So nobody demands a sex-act witnessed in writing before deciding that someone was HETEROsexual. Then why should we need a sex-act witnessed in writing before we decide that someone was HOMOsexual?

There is no eyewitness PROOF that George Washington was heterosexual, yet we all believe he WAS (and while we could be convinced to the contrary by the recovery of evidence that, as of now, is lost, we couldn't be thus convinced by new arguments based on EXISTING evidence). So even though we lack eyewitness PROOF that Buchanan was homosexual, the logical believe that he WAS homosexual. And while we might revise that belief if lost evidence is later recovered, mere argument based on existing evidence won't dissuade us. As long as there's more evidence that Buchanan was homosexual than there is that he was heterosexual, and as long as there's more evidence that Buchanan was homosexual than the amount of evidence that makes us believe that George Washington was heterosexual, the correct course is to believe that Buchanan was homosexual no more tentatively than (but not less tentatively than) we believe that George Washington was heterosexual. If "preponderance-of-the-evidence", rather than "clear-and-convincing" or "beyond doubt" is the standard that makes us believe that George Washington was heterosexual, then "preponderance-of-the-evidence", not "beyond doubt", is how we should decide Buchanan's sexuality, in which case we decide it "homosexual".

One possible motive for requiring a higher standard of proof for HOMOsexuality is the belief that if we say a man was heterosexual and it turns out he isn't, we have not wronged his reputation any more than if we said his eyes were brown when they were blue; but that if we say a man was HOMOsexual and it turns out he wasn't, we have (because homosexuality is, unlike heterosexuality and eye-color, evil) hurt his reputation, so an untrue assertion of homosexualty delivers an unjust injury, which can be avoided only if we insist on solid proof before we speak. Since logic rejects the idea that homosexuality is evil, it rejects the idea that an assertion of HOMOsexuality requires more proof than an assertion of HETEROsexuality.

We shouldn't be any slower to conclude that, because Buchanan was recognized as homosexual in his day, had mannerisms associated (in his day) with homosexual men (of his day), and wrote of wooing men and a possible sham marriage to a female (in desperation, ONLY to obtain health-care and meals) devoid of ardent or romantic affection, ERGO HE WAS HOMOSEXUAL, than we would be to conclude that, because some man is recognized as heterosexual in his day, has mannerisms associated (in his day) with heterosexual men (of his day), and writes of wooing women and a possible sham marriage to (where legally recognized) a male (in desperation, ONLY to obtain health-care and meals) devoid of ardent or romantic affection, ERGO HE IS HETEROSEXUAL.

Some of you (and some of your sources) say things that amount to this: "No, he's not to be considered homosexual until every possible explanation (no matter how tenuous, no matter how implausible its assertions as to the meanings of his written words, no matter how much relying on pseudo-sciences such as phrenology (Baker)) of what is known about him that can REMOTELY be cobbled to be consistent with his being HETEROsexual has been exhausted. Only then, when all other possibilities are refuted, when backed into a corner, coerced by the hardest of hard facts that can't be laid aside or 'explained' out of existence, can we, as a last resort, admit that he was homosexual." Since nobody would say that about purported HETEROsexuality, it should not be said about purported HOMOsexuality either.

If I flag George Washington as a "significant heterosexual" are you, Rockgenre and Berean Hunter, going to complain that there's no definitive proof that Washington WAS heterosexual? It IS TRUE that there's no definitive proof that Washington was heterosexual, but the lack of definitive proof is not going to matter to you. The surmise of the logical is that Washington WAS heterosexual, based on a CERTAIN AMOUNT of evidence (even though that evidence falls short of "iron-clad proof"). And the logical ALSO surmise that Buchanan was HOMOsexual, based on MORE than that amount of evidence (even though that evidence also falls short of "iron-clad proof").

Are you, Contaldo80, going to say that we can't "definitively conclude" that Washington was heterosexual (which is true, we can't) or that the evidence is not "clear" (which might be true, depending on what "clear" means). It's not that I disagree about the evidence being short of this or that standard, for it IS short. What I say is that it's not RELEVANT that it doesn't meet that standard because the parallel evidence doesn't meet that standard on Washington's HETEROsexuality but nobody's going to object if I tag Washington as a signficant heterosexual. That's what constitutes a double-standard.

The thing that really gives YOU away, RockGenre, is where you say plenty of ... celebrities are "RUMORED" to be homosexuals. You don't say they're "widely believed" to be homosexuals. "Rumored". Have you ever said/written of a celebrity that he or she is "RUMORED" to be HETEROsexual? No, you'd say "widely believed to be heterosexual", because you can only be "rumored" to be something that is neither value-neutral nor good but is in fact bad. You wouldn't object to the "heterosexual" tag for George Washington on the grounds that he was only "RUMORED" to be heterosexual, would you? That his heterosexuality is "only speculation"? (Which is true, it is only rumor and speculation that Washington was heterosexual, my point being not that there's firm proof, but, rather, that you DON'T CARE that people accept Washington to have been heterosexual ABSENT firm proof, but you DO CARE if people accept Buchanan to have been HOMOsexual absent firm proof. How is that not a double standard?)69.86.131.90 (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * I don't believe the article should directly state that Buchanan was a homosexual. There needs to be some room for the reader to make their own inferences. If there are any historians that believe Buchanan was a homosexual, then those historians needs to be mentioned specifically in the article, i.e. this historian believes Buchanan was a homosexual. That way there is no blanket statement that Buchanan was in fact a homosexual. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Buchanan was not "openly gay" -- for example his political opponents never made that allegation or spread that rumor. Most historians believe he had little interest in sex one way or the other; Baker has the best RS coverage of this issue, and she examined all the historical documents. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would we not use the word homosexual, even if we determine he wasn't? Why the coyness? Also how reliable can Baker's conclusions really be. Particularly as she has put forward the argument that he was asexual based on photographs which in her opinion show him having a 'low hair line', and thus low levels of testosterone. Hardly resounding evidence. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Separately I also don't like censorship of pople's arguments unless there is good reason. Is the argument of Baker that "Isn't it possible that she has homophobic bias and WANTS to conclude that Buchanan (having attained the US's highest office) wasn't homosexual and so steers her logic and enquiries accordingly?" really a BLP violation? It's not stating categorically that Baker is homophobic, but it's reasonable to consider whether that is a factor. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Wiki rules require censorship here. the issue is not Buchanan it's a personal attack on a living person --a nasty accusations of serious bias against a leading scholar, with zero support from any RS. The IP said his accusations are more than possibility--he says are true: "That seems a simple enough explanation to ME as to why she won't say that Buchanan was homosexual." That is a BLP violation that is not tolerated at Wikipedia  WP:BLP which says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."  and 6.5: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first...."  I reported the violations to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is this passage: 'I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."' That passage is footnoted to sources 63, 64, and 65. If you consider those to be unreliable sources, then remove the passage. The questions that passage raises are these: (1) If language that could be penned by a man about women would be interpreted as indicating its author's HETEROsexuality, how can that same language penned by a man about MEN not be equally indicative of its author's HOMOsexuality? The question is why the failure to be PARALLEL in interpreting the language does NOT constitute a double-standard. The answer to this question begins with "Chris, it's not a double-standard because ..." and ends with whatever reasoning you might supply. The answer does NOT consist of erasing the question again. And (2) If you believe that this passage in Buchanan's own hand is not sufficient evidence to conclude it most likely that Buchanan was homosexual, then what is your definition of "sufficient evidence"? The answer to that question is "Chris, if [list of evidence] existed I would believe that Buchanan was most likely homosexual. If such evidence is produced in the future I will start believing it then. Absent such evidence I continue to believe that Buchanan was most likely NOT homosexual." Finally there are questions about whether a person who exists only hypothetically (no actual person) has BAD CHARACTER or not. If a hypothetcial person wishing to avow Buchanan's heterosexuality avoids answering my first question above because they know there IS no good explanation of why their failure to interpret Buchanan's passage as strong evidence of his homosexuality is not a double standard, and if they refuse to answer my second question above because they are NEVER going to concede Buchanan's likely homosexuality no matter WHAT the evidence, does that person have bad character or not? And if they erase the questions so that the world will not even KNOW the questions have been asked, do they not have WORSE-THAN-BAD character? Is this or is this not a widely-accepted criterion for "bad character"? 69.86.131.90 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Wiki rules require that we summarize the scholarly secondary sources . Those scholars have read tens of thousands of letters and other primary sources for the era, as well as all the scholarly studies. We rely on them no some editor's personal reading of one letter. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Those scholars have read tens of thousands of letters and other primary sources for the era". You're making a bit of an assumption there aren't you! I like in general to give the benefit of the doubt to genuine historians and biographers and believe that they reach their conclusions based solely on the facts in front of them. But we have to accept that when it comes to issues of sexuality (and homosexuality in particular), some writers do have a tendency to become a little squeamish and avoid tackling the subject head on. Baker's suggestion that Buchanan was asexual because pictures show him with a high hairline seem poor historical objectivity at best. I'm not saying that these writers are wrong - I'm just making the point that bias inevitably creeps in everywhere. The best approach would be to collect as many sources as we possible can about Buchanan's sexuality/ relationships and sift them to see who says what based on what evidnce. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * " The best approach would be to collect as many sources as we possible can about Buchanan's sexuality/ relationships"--well yes that is exactly what Baker has done. She's also read the medical and psychiatric literature of the day (see her biog of Mary Lincoln) That's why we rely on established scholars instead of anonymous editors who have read three letters and none of the scholarship, and are trapped in the conventional wisdom of the 2010s. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear what advantage there is in reading the medical and psychiatric literature of the day - perhaps you can clarify? In any case I think we can acknowledge Baker's position: Buchanan became involved with Ann Coleman. They became engaged in 1819. But, the marriage was called off. Baker believes that Coleman tired of Buchanan’s lack of affection for her. Also, Buchanan was seen in the company of another woman while they were engaged. Baker points out, no one in Buchanan’s time would have identified himself as homosexual. There were just men who sometimes had sex with other men. Also, Buchanan may have just been not interested in sex. Baker tells us that Buchanan never had to shave in his life. He couldn’t grow facial hair. She posits the idea that Buchanan may have suffered from a hormonal imbalance that left him generally uninterested in sex with anyone. In his writings, Buchanan would mention his desire to get married, but only for career reasons. Buchanan liked the idea of a woman who would cook for him and take care of him, but he certainly didn’t want to have to be affectionate or caring or chatty.Buchanan would, for a time, share a room (and a bed) with Alabama Senator William King. The two men were very close and Andrew Jackson dubbed them “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy.” But this is only Baker's opinion - she has reached her own conclusions based on the material she has used. That does not mean there are alternative interpretations. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "alternative" above was intended to be "no alternative", no? Hi, it's me again, Christopher L. Simpson of 313 West 92nd Street New York, NY 10025, formerly of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the "anyonymous editor" who signs every one of his posts with the impenetrably cryptic "Christopher L. Simpson". Medical and psychiatric evidence are OUT OF BOUNDS because homosexuality is NOT a medical or psychiatric condition. No we DON'T need to read thousands of letters from Buchanan before deciding that he was more-than-likely homosexual, and the reason we don't is that we wouldn't need to read thousands of letters from George Washington before concluding that Washington was HETEROsexual. First, 1,000 letters in which Bucahanan doesn't reveal his sex-life mean nothing given the consequences of any revelation of his sex-life to someone indiscreet. Second, ONE LETTER in which George Washington mentions wooing women without success and having some sexless but practicality-serving relationship with a man as a second-rate substitute for a woman would be (if it existed, which I admit is not the case) enough to convince us of Washington's HETEROsexuality (at least as a higher probability than his not being heterosexual, which is all that matters, because of the inherent lack of 100% provability of ANYONE's sexuality). A parallel-but-gender-mirrored letter from Buchanan's hand DOES exist and it, by itself alone (although we do also have Andrew Jackson's relating of the commonly-used nicknames for Buchanan and a lover, but yes of course "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy" just COULDN'T be names for two homosexual lovers), is enough evidence to draw the parallel-but-gender-mirrored conclusion of Buchanan. While I'm here I will self-abasingly apologize for my assertion that anyone here present would concede a probability of Buchanan's homosexuality only when they had an advert in the NYTimes and on a Times Square billboard stating "I, President Buchanan, don't like sex with women and do like sex with men". That was SO wrong. If you DID have evidence of such adverts you would STILL not accept Buchanan's probable homosexuality, and so I retract my scurrilous allegations. 69.86.131.90 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * President Jackson alludes to the maiden aunt -- a common trope in the ante-bellum era that implied they were moralistic (Tom Sawyer's Aunt Polly), fastidious ("Aunt Fancy" -- Sen King was a stickler for fancy clothes) and passionless (asexual). For the images you can read a few thousand letters and diaries, or depend on scholars who have read them, such as Baker, G. Barker-Benfield, The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes toward Women and Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century America  (1976) and Nancy Cott, "Passionless: an interpretation of Victorian sexual ideology: 1790–1850," Signs (1978), pp. 219–236. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument on maiden aunt sounds interesting but do you have a clear source to support the argument that it is what Jackson intended? On the issue of Baker, I think we've established what her view is now. That doesn't mean, of course, that she is right or that there aren't opposing views; but it's fair that her comments are reflected as her biography is an important one. Incidentally Christopher I wouldn't make so much of the point of Washington's heterosexuality as some editors may well argue that the concept didn't exist widely before the 1970s (and thus presumably they never existed before then). Contaldo80 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jackson alludes to the "Maiden Aunt"? No he doesn't! Jackson alluded to a male homosexual couple known as "Aunt Fancy" and "Miss Nancy", whom Aaron Brown called "Buchanan and his wife". You say that Senator King would be called a "maiden-aunt" because he was fastidious. It turns out he was fastidious in attire. Yes. True. He was. It's because he was homosexual (or, to avoid imprecision, it's because he had a characteristic that has a very high statistical correlation with being a male homosexual). Most (but not all) homosexual men are better-dressed than heterosexual men. And most (but not all) men who dress both immaculately and ornately are homosexual.


 * Rjensen says "you can read a few thousand letters and diaries, or depend on scholars who have read them". That's wrong, because nobody has had to read a few thousand letters and diaries to figure out that George Washington was HETEROsexual. Ergo they don't need to read that much to conclude that Buchanan was HOMOsexual. You give no acknowledment of the wrongness of demanding a standard of proof for Buchanan's HOMOsexuality that is anything other than the mirror of the standard of proof for Washington's HETEROsexuality. Everyone thinks Washington was heterosexual without deferring to so-called "scholars". Likewise they'll someday believe the same of Buchanan's homosexuality.


 * If Baker CAN read thousands of letters and diary-entries and still find the wiggle-room (resorting to a pseudo-scientific interpretation of Buchanan's APPEARANCE) to say that Buchanan wasn't likely to have been homosexual, that doesn't help the case against Buchanan's homosexuality. Rather, it hurts the case for reading thousands of letters and diary-entries. Baker did all that reading and STILL would not see the truth. So what good did all that reading do her?


 * So we have to ask (not ASSERT but just ASK) whether Baker did not see the truth because, a-priori her encounters with the evidence, she did not WANT it to lead to a high likelihood of the homosexuality of a President. We have to ASK that. I've never MET Baker nor read anything she's written other than here, and until I do I will NOT be told that absent evidence to the contrary I am obligated to regard her as credible. She must be aware of all of the evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality that is in this very Wikipedia article, and yet she still writes that he probably wasn't homosexual. That alone marks her as NOT CREDIBLE (and let her sue me for saying so!). Nor is anything quoted that suggests she has gone on record stating "the following hypothetical evidence, which I have not yet encountered, would, if I do encounter it later, convince me of a high likelihood of Buchanan's homosexuality".


 * For the editors cited by Contaldo80: Nobody being heterosexual before the 1970s? Rubbish. "Heterosexual" is not an empty, circuitously self-referential "concept" like checking the "White" box for race on a form from the Census-bureau, whose only DEFINITION of "White" is "a person who checks the 'White' box on our forms". While humans' self-classification into racial, national, ethnic, and religious catergories rests on shaky logic (for instance someone of 75% European and 25% African ancestry being regarded by themselves and by others as "a black peron"), there's actually some CONTENT to the adjectives "heterosexual" and "homosexual". There are several criteria (each inconsistent with the others but any ONE of them capable of CONSISTENT universal application) each one of which can classify every human who ever lived as "female" or "male". Some schemes attempting this are flawed, such as "'XX' is female and 'XY' is male", because then people of other patterns, say 'XXX', 'XYY', 'XXY', can't be classified. Likewise if anatomy rather than genes is the test it must not be "A womb is female, a penis and testicles are male" because it fails to classify people who have both a womb and testicles, testicles but no penis, a penis but no testicles, an ovary on one side and a testicle on the other, etc. To achieve a dipolar sorting one must define EITHER "female" or "male", not both of them, and then let the category NOT defined consist of all humans who do not meet the definition given for the category that IS defined. One can be consistent by using only ONE of the criteria, because there are 'XY' people with wombs and 'XX' people with testicles, and "XXY" people who could be male if the test is "presence of at least one 'Y'" or female if the test is "presence of at least two 'X's". Once a single criterion constructed to ensure dipolarity is chosen, it is possible to consistently assign one (and only one) of two genders to each person who ever lived. We can then ask if the set of all people with whom you could ever want to have sex consists of ONLY females (and a few rare males who are like females in some aspect that is crucial for your desiring), or ONLY males (and a few rare females who are like males in some aspect that is crucial for your desiring), or does it consist of a mixture of females and males OTHER than females who are like males in some respect and males who are like females in some respect? If the set is as the latter, you are bisexual regardless of your own gender. If the set is only females and you're female, or if the set is only males and you're male, you're homosexual. If the set is only females and you're male, or if the set is only males and you're female, you're heterosexual. If the set is empty, you're "non-sexual". Thus it is possible not only to sort everyone who ever lived into "females" and "males", but also to sort them into "homosexuals", "heterosexuals", "bisexuals", and "non-sexuals" although a different criterion for gender chosen at the outset could result, for some people, in a different orientation-tag at the end. But there's no way that any SINGLE well-formed dipolar criterion for gender chosen at the outset will make it AMBIGUOUS, or INDETERMINATE, at the end, to tell if you are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or non-sexual. This orientation-tag is something objective about you. It has nothing to do with whether you consider YOURSELF to be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. It's simply wrong to say that heterosexuality didn't exist until the 1970s. Large numbers of infants were born in the 1960s. The vast majority resulted from CONSENSUAL acts. Females and males were doing heterosexual things to each other even way back in those days.69.86.131.76 (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson a.k.a. "the anonymous editor".


 * Re-reading this entire page to find where I made some paragraph-indenting mistakes, I find that it was Rjensen who insisted that the removing of the pseudo-scientific passage from Baker be reverted because it should not have been removed because some "unnamed scientist" thinks it "unscientific" and "there is no such scientist". How do you KNOW that? Do you have an exhaustive criterion that differentiates every living person who "is a scientist" from those who are not? Did you ask everyone alive who meets that criterion? If you have not asked ALL scientists whether or not they regard the passage as pseudo-scientific, you can't say that "there is no such scientist" who regards the passage as pseudo-scientific. I do not argue against you by saying that there IS such a scientist. I'm saying you engage in a fallacy of infinite recursion with respect to "authority". If I were to say that Ms. Smith thinks the passage is unscientific and that Ms. Smith is a scientist so she should overcome your objections, you can counter by saying "Who says Ms. Smith is a reputable scientist?" and then I say "Dr. Jones says so" and you say "Who says that Dr. Jones is a reliable judge of Ms. Smith's ability to reliably judge the scientific validity of the Baker passage?" and I could say "Mr. Johnson says so" and you could likewise need a citation supporting that Johnson is qualified on the question of whether Jones is qualified on the question of whether Smith is a reliable impeacher of Baker. If it's impossible to believe anything unless it is endorsed by authority, and if it's also impossible to believe that any authority's endorsement can be trusted unless it in turn is endorsed by authority, then you, yourself, Rjensen, could not believe ANYTHING, because you'd have to spend an infinite amount of time finding the endorsements by endorsed authorities who endorse other endorsed authorities. We live for only a finite amount of time, so this is impossible to do. Unless you believe nothing at all, Rjensen, you believe something that is not supported by authority in the manner you demand of others. You believe something just because your own thought and experience show to you that it is true and the world be damned if it disagrees. You believe something based on, horrors, "personal POV". Other people are allowed the same privilege, which I shall exercise now: Baker's passage about Buchanan's appearance is unscientific quackery. It is not unscientific only if some scientist (who is a scientist in the world's eyes only because someone qualified on scientists says he is one) says that it is unscientific. It is unscientific as a matter of observable fact, as the tendency of massive objects to move towards other massive objects is an observable fact. There is an objective truth, transcending mere opinion, to Baker's passage being unscientific. The falling tree in the deserted forest vibrates the air-molecules although no "authority" hears it. Those pointing out that Baker's passage is unscientific need only general knowledge of science and its (heavily anti-authoritarian) principles, nothing more. Just who is it, Rjensen, that is "qualified" to tell us that buffaloes can't fly? Is it aerodynamic engineers? Or is it bovine-specializing biologists? Or is it: EVERYONE who's never done a LICK of research in EITHER area! My answer is the latter of the three. 69.86.131.76 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson


 * I'm sorry - I've tried to be sympathetic to your arguments but you're just rambling not. Can I suggest you devote your energies to identifying good clear sources that discuss the issue of Buchanan's sexuality and we can think about how best to improve the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Contaldo80, I absolutely WILL NOT identify good clear sources as requested. The sources that make it clear that Buchanan was a noteworthy homosexual are already in the article as it stands. Should I find new sources the same fallacies will be applied in order to ignore THEM as well. I note AGAIN that you have not conceded IN ADVANCE of sending me to search just what it would be that would constitute "good clear sources". If that's not conceded in advance, if you can't pin yourself down to eliminate wiggle-room, then no matter what I might find you'll have an out, some ability to claim "that's not a good clear source" just as you allow Rjensen to claim that Buchanan's references to wooing some men, Andrew Jackson's use of the names "Aunt Fancy and Miss Nancy", and the references to them as a man and wife, living together, and being well-dressed, are not "good clear sources".


 * The infinitely-recursive game that is being played (in bad faith) in this Talk-page has a parallel well-described at
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles
 * If Rjensen can claim that a source identifying Buchanan as homosexual isn't a good source until that source is so determined to be a good source by a further good source, I can find such further good source and he can take the game into an additional do-loop (or recursive iteration or whatever it is that computer-programmers call it) and deny that such further good source is a good source until so determined to be by a yet-further good source. The remedy is not to chase down the good sources (for Rjensen's game is to never be satisified no matter how many levels of nesting of sources occur). The remedy is to point out that Rjensen's demands consitute an infinitely-recursive fallacy of authoritarianism, a game played in bad faith.


 * I won't find evidence because I'm not arguing that someone is mistaken and merely needs more evidence to be persuaded. I'm arguing a different thing entirely: that someone is acting in bad faith and, so, won't be persuaded regardless of evidence, which already exists, in the article, in abundance.


 * I also won't find evidence because I'm not a CREATOR of Wikipedia knowledge, I'm a CONSUMER of it, and when it's self-contradictory I have every right to complain about the inferiority of the product. It's not my JOB to improve the article!


 * You say, and I quote, "you're just rambling not". Does that mean I'm not rambling? It's an archaic turn of phrase. Why not say "you're just not rambling"? Or did you mean "now" instead of "not"? Perhaps you're frustrated because I'm not trying to resolve a disagreement about Buchanan's sexual desires, as you might be. I'm trying to denounce certain fallacies of truth-finding. The truth is that which is true. It is not that which so-called "experts in the field, who've done the research" agree to concede to be true (the experts being chosen by those who are experts on who is an expert, requiring an infinite chain of endorsements, hence the fallacy of authoritarianism in all its uses for whatever purpose it is cited). ("Infinite chain of authority" fallacies are not only impossible to conclude, but those who espouse them can't really have followed their own rules they do in fact believe SOMETHING that is not endorsed but the infinite chain.) Experts in the field who are not DISINTERESTED in what they find should be, I think, disqualified. When an author draws conclusions from primary sources that contradict those very primary sources they're citing, I need not do ANY further research on the matter they discuss, nor on the background of that author themselves, to conclude that, on the strength of such behavior alone (drawing conclusions contradicting their own cited primary sources), THAT AUTHOR IS UNTRUSTWORTHY. I need not have any sources about Baker nor Buchanan other than what I read in this article to know that BAKER IS UNTRUSTWORTHY because her conclusion contadicts primary sources of which she must have been aware. I will not DO research on Buchanan's sexual desires because I DO NOT CARE about the question one way or the other. I care only about rhetorical techniques that people employ to prevent the question from being decided disinterestedly by evidence and logic.


 * I admit that the objective way to describe humans as homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, was tedious, resting as it did on the necessity of first describing people OBJECTIVELY as being a member of one of two genders, but it seemed to be necessary against the assertion that sexual desires didn't exist before people gave names to sexual desires. I didn't WANT to input something so long, but it seemed that nothing else would explain (to someone who thinks that all truth is social truth) how it is that homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals existed since before human language existed.


 * The placing of "scholars" beyond any accountability to non-scholars, who cannot detect errors of fact but who can yet, without ANY knowledge of the FACTS, spot plain old bad reasoning and contempt for logic when they see it, has very grave moral implications for individual freedom, equality vs. favoritism, and accountability vs. autocrats. In Rjensen's world, expert testimony would consist of telling the jury which way to vote and the jury would comply like meek sheep. I will NEVER let that be MY world. Expert testimony is AT BEST scrutinized by people screened to have NO KNOWLEDGE of the underlying fact being attested but EVERY right to probe the expert testimony for inconsistencies and to consider the cross-examiner's attempt to expose the expert's bad motives. Being an expert doesn't give one carte blanche to decree truth. Being an expert should only equip one, better than one was equipped before doing the scholarship, to convince someone who is no less skeptical because an expert IS an expert. It is what an expert has ACQUIRED by becoming an expert, not the fact of an expert's BEING an expert, that should be (if it holds up, which isn't the case here) given weight.


 * Deferring to Baker because she has read a lot on Buchanan is a slippery-slope to tyranny that reaches far beyond this insignificant little question of whether Buchanan was homosexual or not. If he wasn't homosexual just because the mountain of references that says he was is snubbed by a "recognized expert", then nobody has any right to engage in critically evaluative thinking at all.


 * I have not yet addressed North Shoreman's comment of 18 May 2012 (UTC). So there's no way to validly point out that Baker's "portrait" quote is unscientific? If one says so without sourcing it, then one gets slapped for lack of a source. But then if one goes out and finds a source saying it's quackery to infer a disinterest in sex from a portrait, then one gets slapped for "doing original research". Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't. You must truly admire the devious insurmountability of the conundrum you have designed. So what I have to do is take the passage in question to an endocrinologist and get them to write and publish an article saying SPECIFICALLY that there is a historian named Baker who thinks she can tell that a President wasn't homosexual by looking at his portrait and therefore she's unscientific? THAT's the only way to challenge Baker's passage? THAT's the way Wikipedia works? And those of you saying that men didn't have sex with men, and women didn't have sex with women, until the 1970s, because the their MOVEMENT didn't exist until the 1970s? (Ergo factory-workers didn't exist before Marx's earliest antecedents? Enslaved American blacks didn't exist before the abolitionist movement was created? Does a phenonemon not exist before (and independently from) humans IDENTIFYING that phenomenon? Does NOBODY here perceive the absurdity of their positions? 69.86.131.76 (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson


 * I'm personally tiring now of these lectures that make little sense and do nothing to improve the article. The point of the talk page is to discuss how an article should be bettered. You admit that you're not interested in doing that so I can I suggest will all courtesy that you now move on, as I do not intend to devote any more time to reading or replying. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Contaldo80, Here is how to improve the article: First, restore its membership in the category, or banner, or whatever it was, of noteworthy homosexuals (or interesting homosexuals, or whatever it was) because the article itself makes it abdundantly clear that Buchanan was homosexual, not with certainty, but with a likelihood far greater than that he was heterosexual or non-sexual, and with a likelihood sufficient to tag his page. Second, remove Baker's pseudo-scientific quackery that infers his disinterest in sex from his appearance. That is junk-science and everyone here knows it, and the games being played to support its scientific validity are dishonest. Baker may be an expert on what Buchanan wrote and what was written ABOUT Buchanan. But she can't possibly be an expert on inferring Buchanan's sexual desires from his appearance because it is scientifically impossible for ANYONE to be an expert on inferring ANYONE's sexual desires from that latter's appearance. Since the first "ANYONE" in that sentence includes Baker and the latter "ANYONE" includes Buchanan, ergo Baker can't be an expert on inferring Buchanan's sexual desires from his appearance. That passage MUST go for you to mantain any PRETENSE of good faith. As serious scholarship it is a SHAM. If you won't do those two things, then at least TALK to me about why not. Note WHY I am peeved, not simply THAT I am peeved, and consider whether I have ample justification for being peeved. 69.86.131.76 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * == REMOVAL: There is no consensus ==

The long argument above from several editors shows there is no consensus on Buchanan's private life. Furthermore, the speculation violates two tenets found in the essay "What Wikipedia is Not," specifically: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground. The claims about Buchanan's private life are from books written 150 years after his death, and a blanket statement like "there can be no doubt" about someone who has been dead that long is the height of folly. It doesn't matter if Klein or Loewen are "reliable sources;" they are still expressing an opinion about something they cannot possibly prove. Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Then take away your own emotions and a desire to be right and it boils down to this: there is no evidence - NONE - beyond the speculation of people who never knew the subject. Thus, the section must be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a source contemporary with James Buchanan who knew him well. This source says that James Buchanan liked to perform sex acts with men. Here is the text that unambiguously declares the fact that James Buchanan liked to perform sex acts with men: "I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection". The author of that text was James Buchanan, not someone who lived 150 years later and never met James Buchanan.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * the quite is authentic but it does not mention any sex acts. When Victorians said they "went wooing," they certainly did not mean sex. Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are the LGBT project and portal really necessary here?
Yes. They're necessary. The fact that there is currently much speculation about Buchanan's sexuality, yet nothing at all--even about the speculation and debate--on his Wiki page is outrageous and speaks volumes about what is wrong with Wikipedia editors. A simple Google search of "James Buchanan gay" yields 1.5 million hits on Google and scores of articles from reliable news sources. Although no article can state emphatically that he was gay, may do in fact quote CONTEMPORARY accounts of Buchanan and his relationship with Rufus King, including letters. Not mention the debate AT ALL is tantamount to whitewashing emerging history. Somebody should put something back in, at least about the late 20th century speculation. --GT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.106 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no definitive proof that President Buchanan really was a homosexual. Even the source in the article states that the claim is simply based on speculation. There are plenty of actors, musicians, and other modern celebrities rumored to be homosexuals as well and the project isn't included on their pages. Including the project on this page seems to me like including President Harding in WikiProject African diaspora. RG (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is overreaching. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * qnotes has an article entitled, "James Buchanan: America’s first gay president?". It quotes James W. Loewen, a historian with a long list of published books. Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Loewen is a sociologist and has not published any scholarship on Buchanan, which wiki rules say we need for a RS. Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Jean Baker biography:
 * "As for Buchanan, his reasons may have involved sexual preference, for there has long been suspicion that our only bachelor president was a homosexual" (p. 20).
 * "So intimate was he with the handsome Alabama senator, who was known as a dandy in his home and an "Aunt Fancy" in Washington, that one congressman referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife" in reference to their bachelor status, which also hinted at their homosexuality."
 * "Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president". (p. 25) Kauffner (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time since I was active on Wikipedia. But I have a hard time understanding why Loewen (including Loewen's more recent article) is not considered an RS, whereas the Baker quote -- which, incredibly, implies it's plausible to deduce Buchanan's serum testosterone levels from his facial features (?!) and from that deduce whether or not he was asexual (?!?!) -- is. Jean H. Baker was not a physician, psychiatrist, or biologist, as far as I know, and no reputable medical or psychological expert would draw such inferences. Can anyone explain the reason for the apparent double standard that seems to frame incredibly scientifically dubious evidence that Buchanan wasn't gay as reliable, while rejecting clear historical evidence that he was gay? SparsityProblem (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (no comment on Baker...I reverted the Loewen piece) The Loewen writeup is an opinion piece which does not have academic merit. It attempts to deceive readers into thinking that there is consensus amongst historians on the subject which is false. "Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual." And with statements like "There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too — he was not far into the closet.", we can safely dismiss this from being anything other than his opinions. It doesn't count for much. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  06:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for any of your assertions about the Loewen piece? SparsityProblem (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the difference between Loewen and Baker?: Baker is a leading historian and specialist on the 1850s with many books and studies on the period. (Loewen is a sociologist who specializes on 21st century museums and has not done historical research on Buchanan). Baker has written a full biography published in a distinguished series edited by Schlesinger. Loewen has written one paragraph on the topic of JB's sexuality which is not footnoted and seems to be a paste-up from published sources written by non-specialists. So I restored the Baker quote....it will not do to claim that some unnamed scientist might possibly think the passage is "unscientific"--there is no such scientist and the sourced text was removed based on personal POV. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a bit confused now. Why does a historian making scientific/medical/biological claims fall within RS while a sociologist is posited to fall outside RS because he's making historical claims? Sociology is closer to history than history is to medicine. Again, I haven't edited Wikipedia very actively in a long time and I'm just trying to understand what the norms are now. SparsityProblem (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Historians make medical claims all the time about the people they study. They discuss any number of diseases, conditions, psychiatric conditions, causes of death, etc. It's part of the biographer's duties. In this case Baker is well-known for her scholarship on psychiatric issues in the 1850s-1870s. The Sociologist is doing fine when he talks about how museums operate today--that is his research--but he did not do any intensive historical research on Buchanan. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-removed the quote from Baker. You stated that you had restored it because "some unnamed scientist might possibly think the passage is 'unscientific'" is not evidence enough for removal, given the fact that no scientist was cited. Well, the quote is discussing physiognomy, which is in fact a pseudoscience. Baker's accomplishments as a respected historian do not qualify her scientific claims (there's a big difference between a historian saying "so-and-so was often lethargic because he had typhoid fever" and "Buchanan was not interested in sexual intercourse because he had distinct facial features and a low hairline."). Furthermore, the burden of proof falls on those making the claims, not the person discrediting them. If you believe the quote has merit, you should provide scientific evidence that backs it up. Simply including it and asking for proof that it's wrong before it's removed is not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I could include a quote stating Buchanan was an alien, and insist it stays on the page until a scientist discredits the claim. In any event, I agree with you that Loewen's quote also shouldn't be included. What's there now outlines both sides of the debate regarding Buchanan's sexuality, without delving into opinion or pseudoscience. Thank you. EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign. 173.11.63.241 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The only burden that needs to be met is that the material is properly supported by a reliable source for the subject. In this case Baker is, without any doubt, a reliable source for the subject of Buchanan's life. Trying to obtain scientific evidence, either to support or refute her analysis, would be original research and is prohibited by wikipedia policy. What would be permissible is introducing material FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE that specifically addresses Baker's contentions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * North Shoreman is right. The way Wikipedia works is that the editors are not allowed to do original research to check out the conclusions of the major scholars in the field (in this case professor Baker). The text now gives the main alternatives (a) not enough evidence to say; b) he was gay; c) he was uninterested in any sex). If there is a fourth option please provide it with a citation. The suggestion "I could include a quote stating Buchanan was an alien" seems false--doubtless it is idle rhetoric. Baker is an expert on the psychological/psychiatric debates of the era (see her biography of Mrs Lincoln). Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Baker quote can remain, in my opinion, as long as the reader is fully aware that Baker was not a medical doctor. Putting in any medical information, the reader could falsely assume that Baker is a medical doctor. As long as the reader knows Baker is a historian, rather then a medical doctor, then Baker's "medical" conclusion(s) on Buchanan is/are appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Baker did not physically examine Buchanan -- but she did examine all the documentation and that is what we want from an expert. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baker is a valid source. I was just mentioning that putting in Baker's appropriate title, such as historical expert, would not give the reader that idea that Baker is a medical doctor. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand that we should not add category tags to the article to describe the subject as LGBT. I can understand that the text may not definitively conclude that Buchanan was homosexual. What I do not understand, however, is why we cannot include the article under the LGBT project banner? Surely the subject matter is of sufficient significance to those with an interest in LGBT issues? I'm happy to accept that the evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality is far from clear; but there is enough still there to be of use to those wanting to get a better understanding of the nuances of LGBT history, and to improve the quality of articles where possible. If nothing, the article at least shows us contemporary attitudes to perceived homosexuality. Surely it is up to project users to decide which articles are significant, and which are not?  Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If Buchanan was an openly gay President, then I would say yes on linking LGBT issues. Historical context needs to apply here. I am not an expert, but from what I understand the LGBT movement may have gotten started in the 1970's in the U.S. not the 1850's or 1860's. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks for clarifying. I'm much clearer in my mind now that the only homosexual men and women in existance were only born after the 1970s. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "homosexual" was developed in 1868. I was refering to the homosexual or gay rights movement of the 1970's. Did Buchanan have homo erotic or sexual relations with men? I don't know. Buchanan never admitted any sexual relationship with men as far as I know. Seems as if Buchanan kept his sexuality to himself. I am not sure how one can state Buchanan belongs in the homosexual rights or gay rights movement of the 1970's. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've misunderstood (deliberately?) the purpose of the project banner. No-one is suggesting that Buchanan belongs to the gay rights movement of the 1970s. What an odd comment. The banner is there to alert project workers that this article may be of interest and require improvement - specifically in contributing to a broader understanding of homosexual attraction in the historic context. We know as a fact that men and women throughout all periods of history have either been attracted to the same gender, or enjoyed close physical and emotional relationships. The project is to make sure these examples are dealt with in a fair and open handed way. That Buchanan kept himself to himself on the issue of his sexuality is valuable information in itself as it suggests that the risks and penalties for living an openly homosexual life or being found out weighed heavily in the past. But the banner in itself does not make a definitive claim either way.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)